r 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CAUFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


/**<JL 


• 


THE  HISTORY  OF 

PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

IN  ENGLAND 


(Kitiitamis  College 

DAVID  A.  WELLS  PRIZE  ESSAYS 


THE  HISTORY  OF 

PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

IN  ENGLAND 

BY 

SHEPARD  ASHMAN  MORGAN,  M.A. 


PRINTED  FOR  THE 

DEPARTMENT  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
OF  WILLIAMS  COLLEGE 

%V  jHoffat,  part  anU  Companp,  IQcto 

1911 


HENRY  LOOMIS  NELSON 

OLIM 
PRECEPTORI 

D.  D.  D. 

DISCIPULUS 

HAUD    IMMEMOR 

S.   A.   M. 


PREFACE 

THIS  is  the  second  volume  in  the  series  of 
"David  A.  Wells  Prize  Essays"  established 
under  the  provisions  of  the  bequest  of  the  late 
David  A.  Wells.  The  subject  for  competition 
is  announced  in  the  spring  of  each  year  and 
essays  may  be  submitted  by  members  of  the 
senior  class  in  Williams  College  and  by  gradu- 
ates of  not  more  than  three  years'  standing. 
By  the  terms  of  the  will  of  the  founder  the  fol- 
lowing limitation  is  imposed:  "No  subject 
shall  be  selected  for  competitive  writing  or  in- 
vestigation and  no  essay  shall  be  considered 
which  in  any  way  advocates  or  defends  the 
spoliation  of  property  under  form  or  process 
of  law;  or  the  restriction  of  Commerce  in  times 
of  peace  by  Legislation,  except  for  moral  or 
sanitary  purposes;  or  the  enactment  of  usury 
laws;  or  the  impairment  of  contracts  by  the 
debasement  of  coin;  or  the  issue  and  use  by 
Government  of  irredeemable  notes  or  promises 
to  pay  intended  to  be  used  as  currency  and  as 
a  substitute  for  money;  or  which  defends  the 


viii  PREFACE 

endowment  of  such  'paper,'  *  notes'  and 
*  promises  to  pay'  with  the  legal  tender 
quality." 

The  first  essay,  published  in  1905,  was 
"The  Contributions  of  the  Landed  Man  to 
Civil  Liberty,"  by  Elwin  Lawrence  Page. 
The  subject  of  the  following  essay  was  an- 
nounced in  1906  by  the  late  Henry  Loomis 
Nelson,  then  David  A.  Wells  Professor  of  Po- 
litical Science.  As  first  framed  it  read,  "The 
Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Power  of  the  English 
National  Council  and  Parliament  to  Levy 
Taxes,  from  the  Time  of  the  Norman  Con- 
quest to  the  Enactment  of  the  Bill  of  Rights; 
Together  with  a  Statement  of  the  Constitu- 
tional Law  of  the  United  States  Governing 
Taxation."  Mr.  Nelson  subsequently  elimi- 
nated the  last  clause,  thus  restricting  the  field 
of  the  essay  to  English  Constitutional  History. 
The  prize  was  awarded  in  1907.  Since  the 
death  of  Mr.  Nelson  in  1908,  the  task  of  edit- 
ing the  successful  essay  has  been  given  to  the 
undersigned  in  cooperation  with  the  author. 

In  publishing  this  volume  occasion  is  taken 
to  state  the  purpose  of  the  competition.  Since 
it  is  confined  to  students  and  graduates  of  a 


PREFACE  ix 

college  which  offers  no  post-graduate  instruc- 
tion, it  is  not  intended  to  require  original  his- 
torical research  but  rather  to  encourage  a 
thoughtful  handling  of  problems  in  political 
science. 

THEODORE  CLARKE  SMITH, 

J.  Leland  Miller  Professor  of 

American  History 
WILLIAMS  COLLEGE, 
WILLIAMSTOWN,  MASS.,  December,  1910. 


INTRODUCTION 

IN  a  chapter  of  Hall's  Chronicle  having  to  do 
with  the  mid-reign  history  of  Henry  VIII  oc- 
curs an  instance  of  popular  protest  against 
arbitrary  taxation.  The  people  are  complain- 
ing against  the  Commissions,  says  the  Chroni- 
cler, bodies  appointed  by  the  Crown  to  levy 
taxes  without  consent  of  Parliament.  "For 
thei  saied,"  so  goes  the  passage,  "if  men 
should  geue  their  goodes  by  a  Commission, 
then  wer  it  worse  than  the  taxes  of  Fraunce, 
and  so  England  should  be  bond  and  not  free." 
Hall's  naive  statement  is  scarcely  less  than  a 
declaration  of  the  axiomatic  principle  of  poli- 
tics that  self-taxation  is  an  essential  of  self- 
government. 

Writers  on  the  evolution  of  the  taxing  power 
are  inclined  to  go  a  step  farther  and  believe 
that  the  liberty  of  a  nation  can  be  gauged 
most  readily  by  the  power  of  the  people  over 
the  public  purse.  With  a  view  so  extended  a 
narrative  of  the  growth  of  popular  control  in 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

England  might  easily  expand  into  a  history  of 
the  English  Constitution.  In  the  present  es- 
say, however,  an  effort  has  been  made  to  ex- 
clude all  matters  which  were  not  of  the  strict- 
est pertinency  to  the  subject  in  hand.  Feudal 
dues  and  incidents,  the  machinery  of  taxation, 
the  Exchequer,  the  forces  accounting  for  the 
shifting  composition  of  the  national  assem- 
blies, these  and  other  matters  have  been 
treated  of  in  outline  rather  than  in  detail,  be- 
cause they  appeared  to  lie  beyond  the  scope  of 
this  essay. 

Only  two  matters  have  been  taken  to  be  of 
first  rate  importance, — the  tax  and  the  au- 
thority by  which  it  was  laid.  Taxation  has 
been  construed  broadly  as  being  any  contribu- 
tion levied  by  the  government  for  its  own  sup- 
port. An  endeavor  has  been  made  in  each 
instance  to  find  out  who  or  what  the  taxing 
authority  was,  and  whether  the  tax  was  laid 
in  accordance  with  it.  Under  the  Normans 
the  taxing  authority  was  unmistakably  the 
king,  and  by  the  Bill  of  Rights  it  lay  as  un- 
mistakably in  Parliament,  with  the  right  of 
initiation  in  the  House  of  Commons.  The 
story  of  the  shift  from  one  position  to  the  other 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

forms,  of  course,  the  major  burden  of  the 
essay. 

At  the  time  when  the  subject  was  assigned, 
the  power  of  the  House  of  Commons  over 
money  bills  had  not  been  brought  into  ques- 
tion for  more  than  two  centuries,  and  the  first 
drafts  had  been  written  and  the  prize  awarded 
before  the  Asquith  ministry  was  confronted 
with  the  problem  of  interference  by  the  House 
of  Lords.  At  this  writing  the  question  has  not 
been  settled.  It  has  seemed  advisable  there- 
fore to  leave  the  essay  within  the  bounds  origi- 
nally set  for  it,  and  what  connection  it  has 
with  the  events  of  1909  and  1910  consists 
chiefly  in  its  consideration  of  the  basic  princi- 
ples involved  in  that  struggle. 

To  the  late  Henry  Loomis  Nelson,  David 
A.  Wells  Professor  of  Political  Science  in 
Williams  College,  I  owe  the  interest  I  have 
had  in  the  preparation  of  this  book.  It  is  an 
outgrowth  of  his  course  in  English  Constitu- 
tional history,  and  some  of  the  interpretations 
placed  upon  events  are  his  interpretations. 
His  death  intervened  before  the  second  draft 
of  the  book  was  made,  and  the  revisory  work 
had  to  be  done  without  his  suggestions.  To 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

my  friend,  Dr.  Theodore  Clarke  Smith,  Pro- 
fessor in  Williams  College,  I  am  indebted  for  a 
painstaking  examination  of  the  manuscript 
and  for  much  valuable  advice  in  the  work  pre- 
liminary to  publication.  Acknowledgments 
in  the  footnotes  to  Bishop  Stubbs,  Mr.  Med- 
ley, Mr.  Taswell-Langmead  and  many  others 
scarcely  manifest  my  obligations.  But  the  es- 
say throughout  is  based  upon  original  authori- 
ties. 

SHEPARD  ASHMAN  MORGAN. 

NEW  YORK,  December,  1910. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  SAXONS:  CUSTOMARY  REVENUES  AND  EX- 
TRAORDINARY CONTRIBUTIONS 1 

Evolutionary  character  of  the  English  Constitution — Early 
ideas  of  taxation  amongst  the  Germans  and  Anglo-Saxons 
— Revenues  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings — The  Danegeld  and 
the  authority  for  it — The  Witenagemot  and  its  powers. 

CHAPTER  II 

FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION:  THE  NORMAN  AND 

THE  ANGEVIN  KINGS,  1066-1215 12 

William  the  Conqueror — His  National  Council  and  its  part  hi 
taxation — Domesday  Survey — William  Rufus — Henry  I 
and  his  Charter — Question  of  assent  to  taxation  in  the  shire 
moots  and  the  National  Council — Stephen — Henry  II — His 
controversy  with  Becket  over  the  Sheriff's  Aid — Scutage — 
Theobald's  complaint — Early  step  toward  a  tax  on  mova- 
bles— The  Saladin  Tithe  and  its  assessment  by  juries  of  in- 
quest— Richard  I — His  ransom — The  king  the  authority 
for  taxes — Refusal  of  Hugh  of  Lincoln — John — His  scutages 
a  cause  leading  to  Magna  Carta — Inquest  of  Service — 
John's  demand  for  a  thirteenth  of  movables — Council  at  St. 
Alban's,  1213 — Summons  to  Oxford — Magna  Carta — Chap- 
ters 12  and  14 — Advance  toward  Parliamentary  taxation. 

CHAPTER  III 

THE  CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS,  1215- 

1272 71 

Henry  III — Reissues  of  the  Charter — Assessment  of  a  cam- 
cage  by  the  Council — Conditional  Grants — Rejected  offer  of 
a  disbursing  commission — Supervision  of  expenditures — 


xvi  CONTENTS 

Representation  as  it  was  in  Henry's  National  Council — 
Knights  of  the  shire  called,  1254 — Provisions  of  Oxford — 
Knights  of  the  shire  summoned  by  Henry  and  Simon  de 
Montfort  to  national  assemblies — In  Parliament,  1264 — 
Simon  de  Montfort's  Great  Parliament,  1265 — First  in- 
stance of  burgher  representation — House  of  Commons  fore- 
shadowed. 

CHAPTER  IV 

LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION,  1272-1297  .  .  107 

Edward  I — His  first  Parliament  and  its  grant  of  a  custom  on 
wool — His  second  Parliament — Attendance  of  knights  of 
the  shire  declared  "expedient" — Provincial  assemblies  at 
Northampton  and  York  grant  taxes — Seizure  of  wool,  1294 
— Separate  meeting  of  knights  of  the  shire — The  Model 
Parliament,  1295 — "What  affects  all  by  all  should  be  ap- 
proved"— Parliament  of  1296 — Struggle  with  the  barons 
over  service  in  Gascony — Contumacy  of  Bohun  and  Bigod 
— Principle  that  grants  must  wait  upon  redress  of  griev- 
ances— Confirmatio  Cartarum — De  tallagio  non  concedendo. 

CHAPTER  V 
TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS,  1297-1461 154 

Character  of  the  period — Parliament  of  Lincoln — Tunnage 
and  poundage  and  other  customs — Tallage — Edward  II — 
Tentative  abolition  of  the  New  Customs — The  Lords  Or- 
dainers — Abolition  of  the  New  Customs — Tallage  of  1312 — 
Deposition  of  Edward  II— Edward  III— Tallage  of  1332 
and  its  withdrawal — New  Customs  a  regular  means  of  reve- 
nue— The  wool  customs — Statutory  abolition  of  the  Male- 
tolt  and  of  all  unauthorized  taxation — Parliament  the  sole 
taxing  authority  in  law — Checkered  history  of  the  wool 
customs — Appropriation  of  Supplies — Examination  of  Ac- 
counts— Death  of  Edward  III — Separate  sessions  of  the 
houses — Richard  II — Trouble  over  audit  of  accounts — 
Special  treasurers — The  Rising  of  the  Villeins — Richard's 
despotism  and  dethronement — Henry  IV — Initiation  of 
tax  levies  in  the  House  of  Commons,  1407 — Henry  V — 
Henry  VI — Declaration  for  appropriation  of  supplies — 
Accession  of  the  Yorkists. 


CONTENTS  xvii 

CHAPTER  VI 

EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION,  1461-1603  .  .  213 

Edward  IV — Benevolences  and  forced  loans — Richard  III — 
Prohibition  of  benevolences — The  Tudors — Henry  VII — 
The  "New-found  Subsidy" — Morton's  Crotch — Early 
taxation  of  Henry  VIII — Cardinal  Wolsey's  breach  of  priv- 
ilege— Henry's  commissions  and  benevolences — Forced 
loans — Profits  of  the  Reformation — Parliament  the  con- 
firming authority  in  clerical  grants — Elizabeth — Liberality 
of  her  Parliaments — Assertion  by  the  commons  of  their 
right  to  originate  money  bills. 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  STUARTS,  1603-1689 236 

Divine  right  as  against  Parliamentary  supremacy — James  I 
dictates  the  composition  of  the  House  of  Commons — Tun- 
nage  and  poundage  for  life — Royal  poverty — The  Bate 
Case — Opinions  of  the  Barons  in  the  Bate  Case — The  posi- 
tion of  Parliament — The  Book  of  Rates — Remonstrance 
from  the  Commons — Cowel's  "Interpreter" — The  Great 
Contract — Petty  extortion  after  the  dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment— The  "Addled"  Parliament — Case  of  Oliver  St.  John 
— James's  Third  Parliament — Delay  of  a  supply  pending 
redress  of  grievances — Revival  of  impeachment  by  the 
Commons — James's  last  Parliament — Charles  I — His  early 
Parliaments — Forced  loans — Threats  of  non-Parliamentary 
exaction — The  Petition  of  Right — Omission  of  the  customs 
— Tunnage  and  poundage — Charles's  eleven  years  without 
Parliament — His  financial  expedients — Ship  Money — Ex- 
tra-judicial opinions — Hampden's  Case — Judgment  for  the 
Crown — The  Short  Parliament — The  Long  Parliament — 
Royal  exaction  of  tunnage  and  poundage  declared  illegal — 
The  Ship  Money  Act — The  Grand  Remonstrance — The 
Puritan  Revolution — Charles  II — Appropriation  of  Sup- 
plies— James  II — William  and  Mary — The  Bill  of  Rights. 

INDEX  .  .  309 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


THE  SAXONS:  CUSTOMARY  REVENUES  AND 
EXTRAORDINARY  CONTRIBUTIONS 

THE  English  Constitution  looks  ever  back-  Evolution- 
ward.     Precedent  lies  behind  precedent,  law 
behind  law,  until  fact  shades  off  into  legend 

Constitu- 

and  that  into  a  common  beginning,  the  Ger-  tion 
manic  character.  Standing  upon  the  emi- 
nence of  1689,  one  sees  the  Petition  of  Right, 
and  then  in  deepening  perspective,  Confirmatio 
Cartarum  and  Magna  Carta.  The  crisis  of 
1215  points  to  the  Charter  of  Henry  I,  and 
behind  that  are  the  good  laws  of  Edward  the 
Confessor.  The  Anglo-Saxon  polity  looks 
back  of  the  era  of  Alfred,  to  the  times  when 
Hengist  and  Horsa  were  yet  unborn,  and  the 
German  tribesmen  were  still  living  in  their 
forests  beyond  the  Rhine  without  thinking 
of  migrating  westward.  And  there,  behind 
the  habits  of  those  barbaric  ancestors  of 


2  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Englishmen,  lies  the  national  character,  the 
Anglo-Saxon  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  of 
loyalty,  justice,  and  duty.  The  growth  of 
the  English  Constitution  has  been  as  subject 
to  the  laws  of  evolution  as  the  development 
of  man  himself.  The  germ  of  national  char- 
acter evolved  habits  of  thought  and  action, 
and  these  habits,  or  as  they  are  better  termed, 
institutions,  were  beaten  upon  by  conditions 
and  fused  with  the  institutions  of  another 
people,  until  at  last  they  took  on  the  shape  of 
free  government. 

Early  ideas      An  account  of  the  advance  toward  the  lay- 
>  taxation    m^  Q£  j-axes  j^y  representatives  of  the  people 

must  begin  with  some  notice  of  the  idea  of 
taxation  which  actuated  the  German  tribes- 
men.    Tacitus  writing  of  them  as  they  were 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Second  Century  A.  D. 
Amongst      makes  this  remark :  "  It  is  customary  amongst 
Germans     ^e  s^a^es  to  bestow  on  the  chiefs  by  volun- 
tary   and    individual   contribution   a   present 
of  cattle  or  of  fruits,  which,  while  accepted  as 
a  compliment,  supplies  their  wants."  l     Here, 

1  Tacitus,  Germania,  cap.  xv.  "Mos  est  civitatibus  ultro 
ac  viritim  conferre  principibus  vel  armentorum  vel  frugum, 
quod  pro  honore  acceptum  etiam  necessitatibus  subvenit. 


THE  SAXONS  3 

then,  is  the  earliest  idea  of  a  tax,  a  voluntary 
contribution  for  the  support  of  the  princeps. 
It  was  prompted  by  the  essentially  personal 
relationship  existent  between  people  and  chief- 
tain, the  sense  of  attachment  of  the  people  to 
the  leader.  Direct  taxation  laid  by  the  prin- 
ceps upon  the  tribe,  was  as  unknown  in  Ger- 
many as  it  was  foreign  to  the  Germanic  spirit. 
When  the  conquering  Saxons,  therefore, 
swept  westward  across  the  German  Ocean, 
they  carried  with  them  scarcely  more  than  a 
semblance  of  taxation.  Between  men  and 
leader  the  personal  relationship  still  subsisted, 
but  as  time  went  on,  the  Anglo-Saxon  king 
became  less  the  father  of  the  people,  and 
more  their  lord.  Lord  of  the  national  land  he  Amongst 
was  as  well,  but  he  did  not  rule  by  reason  of  Saxons 
that  fact.  The  two  claims  upon  popular  sup- 
port were  therefore  distinct,  the  one  as  personal 
leader,  the  other  as  lord  of  the  national  land; 
and  during  the  major  part  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  era  they  afforded  a  sufficient  means 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  king  and  his  gov- 
ernment. Until  the  moment  of  a  supreme 
emergency  the  king  did  not  have  to  seek  ex- 
traordinary sources  of  income. 


4  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

As  lord  of  the  national  land,  the  king  had  a 
double  source  of  revenue.     The  folkland,  or 
Revenue  of  land    subject    to    national    regulation l    and 
Saxon     °    alienable  only  by  the  consent  of  the  Witena- 
kinss          gemot,  presented  the  king  with  its  proceeds, 
much  of  which  went  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  royal  armed  retainers  and  servants.    De- 
ducible  from  this  right  to  the  public  lands, 
was  the  claim  of  the  king  to  tolls,  duties,  and 
customs  accruing  from  the  harbors,  landing- 
places,  and  military  roads  of  the  realm,  and 
to  treasure-trove.    Aside  from  this,  the  king 
was  one  of  the  largest  private  landowners  in 
the  kingdom,  and  from  it  he  derived  rents  and 
profits  which  were  disposable  at  will. 

The  other  sources  of  the  royal  revenue, 
which  at  least  in  the  beginning  may  be  said 
to  have  accrued  to  the  king  by  reason  of 
personal  obligation,  were  the  military,  the 
judicial,  and  the  police  powers.  By  reason  of 
the  military  power  vested  in  him,  the  king 
could  demand  the  services  of  all  freemen  to 
fulfill  the  trinoda  necessitas,  —  service  in  the 
militia,  repair  of  bridges,  and  the  mainte- 
nance of  fortifications.  Further,  in  accord- 

1  Vinogradoff,  Growth  of  the  Manor,  142,  143. 


THE  SAXONS  5 

ance  with  the  system  of  vassalage  incident 
to  his  military  power,  he  had  the  right  of 
heriot,1  according  to  which  the  armor  of  a 
deceased  vassal  became  the  property  of  the 
king.  The  judicial  authority,  also,  was  a 
fruitful  source  of  income;  from  it  the  king 
adduced  a  right  to  property  forfeited  in  con- 
sequence of  treason,  theft,  or  similar  crimes, 
and  to  the  fines  which  were  payable  upon 
every  breach  of  the  law.  The  third  great 
power  vested  in  the  royal  person  was  the 
police  control;  under  it  the  king  turned  to 
account  the  privilege  of  market  by  reserving 
to  himself  certain  payments;  also  the  protec- 
tion offered  to  Jews  and  merchants  was 
paid  for,  and  the  king  pocketed  the  bulk  of 
the  tribute.  Beyond  these,  —  and  here  we 
have  the  analogy  of  the  later  royal  claim  to 
purveyance,  —  the  districts  through  which 

1  The  heriot,  unlike  the  feudal  incident  known  to  the 
Normans  as  a  relief,  was  a  repayment  to  the  king  upon  the 
death  of  a  vassal,  of  the  various  accoutrements  with  which 
he  had  been  endowed.  The  statute  of  Cnut  II,  §  72,  fixes 
the  heriot  of  an  earl  at  eight  horses,  four  suits  of  armor,  and 
two  hundred  mancuses  of  gold.  The  heriot  varied  in  amount 
according  to  the  rank  of  the  deceased  vassal.  The  statute 
is  given  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  74. 


6  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  king  passed  or  those  traversed  by  messen- 
gers upon  the  king's  business,  lay  under 
obligation  to  supply  sustenance  throughout 
the  extent  of  the  royal  sojourn. 

Danegeid,  It  is  apparent  that  an  extraordinary  occa- 
sion had  to  arise  before  this  large  ordinary 
revenue  should  prove  to  be  inadequate  to 
meet  all  reasonable  royal  necessities.  The 
whole  matter  is  shrouded  in  obscurity,  yet 
it  is  unlikely  that  this  extraordinary  occasion 
arrived  before  the  onslaught  of  the  Danes. 
There  is  no  record  of  an  earlier  instance. 

It  was  in  991  '  that  the  Saxon  army  under 
Brihtnoth,  Ealdorman  of  the  East  Saxons, 
suffered  decisive  defeat  at  the  hands  of  Dan- 
ish pirates.  King  Ethelred  the  Unready 
.found  himself  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  enemies, 
and  his  only  recourse  was  bribery.  Under 
this  necessity,  a  levy  2  of  £10,000  was  made, 

1  Florentii  Wigorniensis,  Chronicon  ex  Chronicis,  a.  991, 
p.  149. 

2  "This  tax  was  levied  by  reference  to  the  hides  into  which 
in  the  various  hundreds  of  the  shire,  land  was  divided  for 
the  purposes  of  taxation."     The  hide  was  the  equivalent  of 
100  or  120  acres.     The  rate  was  one  to  four  shillings,  as 
occasion  required.    1  Dowell,  History  of  Taxation  and  Taxes 
in  England,  8. 


THE  SAXONS  7 

and  secured  momentary  peace  from  the  trucu- 
lent Danes.  But  it  was  only  momentary; 
they  returned  in  994  and  took  away  £16,000. 
They  repeated,  under  various  pretexts,  their 
profitable  incursions  in  1002,  1007,  and  101 1.1 
In  1012,  having  been  bought  off  for  the  last 
time,  the  Danes  entered  English  pay,  and  the 
Danegeld  instead  of  being  an  extraordinary 
charge,  became  a  regularly  recurrent  tax. 
It  continued  until  1051,  when  Edward  the 
Confessor  succeeded  in  paying  off  the  last  of 
the  Danish  ships.2  The  chronicler 3  accounts 
for  the  abolition  of  the  Danegeld  after  the 
manner  of  his  time.  Edward  the  Confessor, 
so  goes  the  story,  entered  his  treasure-house 
one  day  to  find  the  Devil  sitting  amongst  the 
money  bags.  It  so  happened  that  the  wealth 
which  was  being  thus  guarded  was  that  which 
had  accrued  from  a  recent  levy  of  the  Dane- 
geld. To  the  pious  Confessor  the  sight  was 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  the  evil  of  the  tax 
and  he  straightway  abolished  it. 

1  Amount  in  1002,  £24,000.  —  Flor.  Wig.  a.  1002,  p.  155. 
Amount   in   1007,   £36,000.  —  Flor.  Wig.  a.  1007,    p.   159. 
Amount  in  1011  not  stated. 

2  1  Dowell,  History  of  Taxation  and  Taxes  in  England,  10. 

3  1  Roger  of  Hoveden,  110. 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


Authority 
for  the 

Danegeld 


But  the  history  of  the  origin  of  the  Dane- 
geld  and  the  mythical  tale  of  its  abolition  are 
of  trifling  importance  as  compared  with  the 
authority  whereby  the  impost  was  laid.  In 
991  it  was  apparently  the  Witenagemot, 
acting  upon  the  advice  of  the  Archbishop 
Sigeric,  which  issued  the  decree  levying  the 
tax.1  Three  years  later  it  was  "King  Ethel- 
red  by  the  advice  of  his  chief  men"  who  prom- 
ised the  Danes  tribute.2  Similarly  in  1002, 
1007,  and  1011  it  is  Ethelred  "cum  consilio 
primatum"  who  fixes  the  amount  of  money 
to  be  raised.3 

The  deduction  is  not  hard  to  make:  it  was 
at  least  usual  if  indeed  it  was  not  felt  to  be  a 
necessity  for  the  king  to  take  counsel  with  the 
Witenagemot  before  he  went  about  the  prelim- 
inaries of  taxation.  It  is  not  unlikely,  however, 


1  Decretum  est  primum  iam  ut  solveretur  tributum  Danicis 
viris,  propter  magnos  horrores  quos  incusserunt  incolis  mari- 
timis;  in  primis  nempe,  X  milia  librarum.     Illud  consilium 
constituit  Siricus  Archiepiscopus.     Chron.  Sax.  a.  991. 

2  Tune  rex  Aegelredus,  procerum  suorum  consilio,  ad  eos 
legatos  misit,   promittens  tributum    et    stipendium  ea  con- 
ventione  illis  se  daturum,  ut  a  sua  crudelitate  omnino  de- 
sisterunt.    Flor.  Wig.  151,  152;  a.  994. 

s  Flor.  Wig.  155,  159,  163;  a.  1002,  1007,  1011. 


THE  SAXONS  9 

that  in  practice  the  assent  of  the  Witan  was 
less  or  more  of  a  formality  varying  according 
to  the  weakness  or  strength  of  the  king.  A 
strong  king's  will  would  dominate  the  Witan, 
whereas  a  weak  king  would  be  subservient  to 
its  desires  and  interest. 

In  order  to  arrive  at  a  clear  comprehension 
of  the  taxing  power  of  the  Witan  as  compared 
with  that  subsequently  exercised  by  the  Eng- 
lish Parliament,  it  is  essential  that  one  under-  The  Wit- 
stands  the  make-up  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  body.  ^J™0 
As  its  name  implies,  the  Witan  was  an  as-  powers 
sembly  of  the  wise.  Its  organization  was  not 
based  upon  the  ownership  of  land,  nor  was 
there  any  rule  held  to  undeviatingly  which  pre- 
scribed qualifications  for  membership.  Gener- 
ally speaking  it  was  composed  of  the  king  and 
his  family,  who  were  known  as  the  Athelings; 
the  national  officers,  both  ecclesiastical  and 
civil,  a  group  which  included  the  bishops  and 
abbots,  the  ealdormen  or  chief  men  of  the 
shires,  and  the  ministri  or  administrative  of- 
ficers; and  finally,  the  royal  nominees,  men 
who  are  not  comprehensible  in  the  above 
classes,  but  who  recommended  themselves 
to  the  king  by  reason  of  unusual  or  expert 


10  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

knowlege.1  It  is  observable,  then,  that  this 
assembly  was  by  the  nature  of  its  composition 
aristocratic.  That  it  was  not  representative 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term  is  as  readily 
apparent.  With  certain  restrictions  the  offi- 
cial members  —  the  bishops,  ealdormen,  the 
ministri  —  were  coopted  by  the  existing  mem- 
bers, while  the  remainder  were  either  present 
by  right  of  birth  or  invited  to  attend  by  reason 
of  peculiar  attainment.  Nevertheless,  the 
Witenagemot  was  commonly  believed  to  be 
capable  of  expressing  the  national  will.  It 
had  the  power  of  electing  the  king  and  the 
complementary  power  of  deposition,  and  exer- 
cised every  power  of  government,  making 
laws,  administering  them,  adjudging  cases 
arising  under  them,  and  levying  taxes  for 
the  public  need.2 

Such  in  brief  was  the  body  which  in  991 
assented  to  the  levy  of  the  Danegeld.  The 
act  was  of  great  importance;  by  it  the  Witan 
both  exercised  a  right  which  was  not  to  be 
vindicated  in  its  completeness  for  the  space  of 
seven  hundred  years,  but  it  laid  a  trap  for 

1  Medley,  English  Constitutional  History,  117,  118. 

2  2  Kemble,  Saxons  in  England,  204-240. 


THE  SAXONS  11 

those  who,  in  the  time  of  Charles  the  First, 
should  be  struggling  for  the  attainment  of  that 
right,  for  in  their  action  lay  the  precedent 
which  the  Stuart  lawyers  should  warp  into  a 
pretext  for  the  levy  of  ship-money. 


II 


FEUDAL   AND    ROYAL   TAXATION 
THE   NORMAN   AND   THE   ANGEVIN    KINGS 
1066-1215 

Character  UNDER  the  Saxon  kings  the  structure  of  gov- 
Norman  ernment  was  only  half  built.  The  founda- 
Rule  tion,  laid  in  the  shire  and  hundred  moots, 

the  townships,  and  the  incidental  organisms 
of  local  government,  was  solid  and  capable 
of  upholding  a  heavy  superstructure.  But 
the  Saxons  scarcely  built  further.  They  left 
to  the  Norman  kings,  peculiarly  fitted  to 
their  work  by  temperament  and  habit,  the 
task  of  setting  up  a  strong  central  government. 
The  price  which  the  nation  paid  for  it  was 
the  loss  of  what  right  it  had  possessed  of 
assenting  to  taxation. 

During  the  whole  period  from  the  coming 
of  the  Normans  in  1066  to  the  signing  of 
Magna  Carta  in  1215  there  can  be  brought 
forward  only  two  or  three  instances  of  assent 
by  the  National  Council  to  taxes  levied  by  the 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        13 

king,  and  these  few  instances  are  at  best 
equivocal.  They  are  insufficient  to  justify 
the  belief  that  the  National  Council  had  any 
final  power  over  the  levying  of  taxation.  But 
the  period  is  not  altogether  gray;  it  concludes 
with  the  enunciation  in  Magna  Carta  of 
rights  which  cast  a  halo  of  color  over  the  whole 
subsequent  narrative  of  the  struggle  for  parlia- 
mentary taxation. 

William  the  Conqueror  was  precisely  the  William 
man  most  likely  to  exercise  supreme  control  Coenqueror 
over  taxation.    Elected  to  the  kingship  accord-  1066-1087 
ing  to  the  Saxon  forms  and  with  his  title  to 
the  crown  backed  up   by  force  of  arms,  he 
created  a  system  of  government  of  which  he 
himself    was    the    center    and    in    which    his 
authority,  even  to  the  vassals  of  vassals,  was 
supreme.1     With  his  thirst  for  power  thus  sat- 
isfied he  was  given  a  free  hand  to  indulge  his 
besetting  sin  of  avarice.     Small  wonder  was  it 
therefore  that  he  clung  to  the  revenues  of  his 
predecessors  and  added  new  imposts  of  his 
own. 

1  At  the  great  Gemot  of  Salisbury,  1086,  William  put  an 
end  to  the  disrupting  effects  of  subinfeudation  by  causing 
all  holders  of  land,  whether  their  tenure  was  mediate  or 
immediate  of  him  to  swear  primary  allegiance  to  the  king. 


14  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Nevertheless,  notwithstanding  the  absolu- 
tist character  of  the  king,  William  retained 
the  theory  and  for  the  most  part  the  form  of 
the  Saxon  Witan.  Never,  however,  did  the 
Norman  assemblies  exercise  independent  leg- 
islative or  executive  functions.1  The  holding 
His  of  land,  as  a  prerequisite  to  membership  in 

National      ^e  National  Council,  was  under  William  an 
council 

uncertain  factor;  the  membership  continued 
to  include,  generally  speaking,  the  same  of- 
ficers, ecclesiastics,  and  nobles  as  composed 
the  Witenagemot.  The  powers  of  this  as- 
sembly were  probably  not  great;  at  any  rate, 
the  magnates  of  the  period  considered  at- 
tendance not  as  a  right  or  a  privilege  or 
even  as  an  advantage,  but  merely  as  a  neces- 
sary duty  toward  the  royal  person.  The  king 
consulted  the  magnates  on  almost  every  piece 
of  legislation,  and  stated  in  the  subsequent 
promulgation  of  the  laws  that  he  had  obtained 
their  advice.  But  in  the  case  of  a  strong  king, 
such  as  was  the  Conqueror,  the  consultation 
must  have  been  scarcely  more  than  a  state- 
ment of  the  royal  will  and  a  formal  acquies- 
cence. The  holding  of  these  assemblies 
1 1  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  385,  note. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        15 

took  place  at  the  crowning  days  of  the  king, 
at  Christmas,  Easter,  and  Whitsuntide,  gen- 
erally in  London,  Winchester,  and  Gloucester. 

In  the  matter  of  taxation,  it  is  probable  as  its  part 
in  the  case  of  other  legislation  that  the  Con-  mtaxatlon 
queror  advised  with  his  Council,  though  the 
evidence  pointing  toward  such  a  conclusion 
is  entirely  of  a  later  date.  But  in  so  far  as 
practical  advantage  to  the  payers  of  the  taxes 
was  concerned,  the  power  might  quite  as 
well  have  lain  solely  in  the  hands  of  the  king; 
if  indeed  the  Conqueror  did  secure  the  assent 
of  the  Council,  it  was  no  more  than  an  in- 
stance of  his  policy  of  adhering  to  the  forms 
of  law  while  making  the  practices  under  it 
serve  his  own  purposes.  The  reimposition  in 
1084  of  the  Danegeld  which  William  revived 
as  an  occasional  instead  of  a  regular  tax,  is 
not  stated  by  the  chronicler  as  receiving  as- 
sent from  the  Council ;  the  king  is  said  to  have 
"received  six  shillings  from  every  hide." l 
Roger  of  Wendover's  Chronicle  of  the  same 

i  2  Flor.  Wig.  17,  a.  1084;  and  1  Rogeri  de  Hoveden,  139. 
"Rex  Anglorum  Willelmus  de  unaquaque  hida  per  Angliam 
sex  solidos  accepit."  This  rate  of  six  shillings  the  hide  was 
three  times  as  great  as  the  amount  under  the  Saxons. 


16  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

year  brands  this  exaction  as  an  "extortion,"  * 
by  which  we  are  scarcely  to  understand  a 
tax  granted  in  any  modern  sense  by  the  chief 
legislative  body  of  the  kingdom.  The  Saxon 
instance  of  Chronicler  speaking  of  the  same  imposition 
Danegeld,  savs>  "The  king  caused  a  great  and  heavy 
tax  to  be  raised  throughout  England,  even 
seventy- two  pence  on  every  hide  of  land.*' 2 
The  amount  of  such  an  impost,  if  drawn  from 
two- thirds  of  the  hidage  of  the  kingdom,  would 
be  a  sum  approximating  £20,000. 3  It  is  un- 
likely that  an  exaction  of  so  great  magnitude 
could  have  been  levied  without  the  assent  of 
the  Council  if  the  Conqueror  was  under  any 
obligation  to  obtain  their  consent  or  even 
their  advice;  and  it  is  still  more  unlikely  that 
four  chroniclers  of  the  events  of  that  year 
should  have  let  pass  unnoted  a  vote  of  assent 
if  it  had  been  passed  by  the  National  Council. 
We  are  therefore  to  conclude  that  either  the 
Conqueror  levied  the  tax  without  consulting 
his  Council  at  all,  or  that  he  did  consult  them, 

J2  Roger  of  Wendover,  23,  a.  1084.  "Having  extorted 
large  sums  of  money  from  all  ranks  where  he  could  find  any 
cause  just  or  unjust,  he  crossed  the  sea  into  Normandy." 

2  Chr&n.  Sax.  a.  1083. 

3  1  Stubbs,  Canst .  Hist.  Eng.  303. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        17 

and  that  their  assent  was  of  so  formal  and 
valueless  a  nature  as  not  to  deserve  notice 
in  the  records  of  the  year.1 

The  year  1086  witnessed  the  Domesday  Domesday 
Survey.  By  it  William  obtained  a  detailed  f^ey* 
register  of  the  land  and  its  capacity  for  taxa- 
tion. To  the  administrative  side  of  taxation 
the  Survey  is  of  supreme  importance,  since 
the  valuation  of  land  thus  arrived  at  was 
never  entirely  superseded  as  a  definite  and 
fair  basis  for  the  laying  of  taxes;  to  the  actual 
granting  of  the  tax,  however,  its  importance 
is  of  much  less  degree.  In  such  light  the  in- 
terest centers  chiefly  on  the  fact  that  repre- 
sentatives were  elected  from  every  hundred 
upon  whose  sworn  depositions  the  information 
that  William  wanted  was  obtained. 

The  unlucky  thirteen  years  of  the  reign  of  William 
William  Rufus,  who  succeeded  to  the  throne  ?^siin 

lUoy— 11UU 

upon  the  death  of  the  Conqueror  in  1087, 
are  almost  negligible  in  considering  the  prog- 
ress toward  parliamentary  taxation.  William 

1  Aside  from  the  reimposed  Danegeld,  William  derived  an 
annual  income  of  £20,000  from  the  royal  lands,  and  an 
amount  difficult  of  estimation  from  the  feudal  dues  and 
incidents. 


18  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Rufus,  or  more  particularly  his  brilliant  and 
perverted  justiciar,  Ranulf  Flambard,  deter- 
mined upon  the  profitable  program  of  getting 
together  as  much  money  as  possible  by  what- 
ever means  seemed  most  convenient.  In  the 
nature  of  things  the  church  and  the  great 
feudatories  were  the  most  available  sources 
for  extortion  and  toward  them  Flambard 
chiefly  directed  his  energies.  He  did  not, 
however,  overlook  the  Danegeld  and  he  seems 
to  have  levied  it  with  perfect  absolutism.  The 
chronicler  Florence  gives  an  instance  of  the 
petty  extortion  which  the  justiciar  practiced 
upon  the  people.  Flambard  was  in  the  habit 
of  enforcing  military  service  from  the  shires. 
On  one  occasion,  so  says  Florence,  he  met  the 
array,  informed  the  militiamen  that  there  was 
no  necessity  for  their  appearance,  and  then 
proceeded  to  mulct  them  of  the  ten  shillings 
which  their  shires  had  given  to  each  by  way 
of  providing  for  their  maintenance.1  Against 
plunderings  of  that  sort  the  people  were  too 
weak  and  too  disunited  to  make  resistance. 
In  such  a  reign,  with  one  side  unwilling  to 
progress  and  the  other  unable,  it  is  apparent 
i  2  Flor.  Wig.  35,  a.  1094. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        19 

that  no  steps  could  be  taken  toward  the  grant- 
ing of  taxes  by  a  responsible  body. 

The  reign  of  Henry  I  is  of  greater  impor- 
tance,  not  only  because  of  the  long  forward 
strides  which  the  king  and  his  justiciar  Roger 
of  Salisbury  took  in  the  direction  of  judicial 
and  financial  organization,  but  because  we 
find  in  the  records  of  his  time  certain  pieces 
of  evidence  which  seem  to  support  the  con- 
tention that  the  Council  gave  some  measure 
of  consent  to  taxation.  The  former  is  palpa- 
bly beyond  the  scope  of  this  essay,  but  the 
latter  is  more  pertinent. 

The  first  of  these  instances  is  the  eleventh  His 
section  of  the  Charter  of  Liberties  which 
Henry  I  issued  at  the  moment  of  his  accession. 
The  significant  passage  is  this:  "To  those 
knights  who  hold  their  lands  by  the  cuirass, 
of  my  own  gift  I  grant  the  lands  of  their 
demesne  ploughs  free  from  all  payments 
and  all  labor."  1  The  king  goes  on  to  state 

1  §  11.  Militibus  qui  per  loricas  terras  suas  defendant, 
terras  dominicamm  carrucarum  suarum  quietas  ab  omnibus 
gildis,  et  oinni  opere,  proprio  dono  meo  concede,  ut  sicut  tarn 
magno  allevamine  alleviati  sint,  ita  se  equis  et  annis  bene 
instruant  ad  servitium  meum  et  ad  defensionem  regni  mei. 
Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  101.  The  translation  of  the  Charter 


20  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  reason;  it  was  "so  they  may  readily  pro- 
vide themselves  with  horses  and  arms  for  my 
service  and  for  the  defense  of  my  kingdom." 
The  relief  thus  granted  was  by  way  of  protec- 
tion against  the  extortionate  demands  which 
Ranulf  Flambard  had  laid  upon  the  lands  of 
vassals  in  the  time  of  William  Rufus.  But 
Henry  did  not  grant  the  liberty  freely  out  of 
hand.  He  appended  the  clause  that  for  his 
service  and  the  defense  of  the  kingdom,  the 
vassals  should  supply  themselves  with  horses 
and  arms.  Thus  remotely  and  in  effect 
rather  than  in  fact  did  the  Charter  touch  upon 
taxation.  It  contained  no  reference  to  assent 
by  the  vassals,  either  individually  or  in  the 
National  Council.  In  accordance  with  the 
feudal  theory  of  individual  contribution  for 
the  support  of  the  lord,  and  in  view  of  the 
provision  in  the  Charter  against  payments, 
the  inference  can  be  drawn  that  individual 
assent  would  be  in  order.  But  to  find  an 
answer  to  the  question  as  to  where  the  col- 
lective assent  of  the  barons  was  obtained,  if 
at  all,  one  must  look  further. 

is  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents  of  English  Con- 
stitutional History,  4-6. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        21 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  "  Samson  the  Bishop  Question  of 
and  Urso  d'Abitat,"  who  were  respectively  the  taxation 
bishop  of  the  diocese  and  the  sheriff  of  the 
county  of  Worcester,  Henry  says,  in  speaking 
of  the  county  courts,  "I  will  cause  those 
courts  to  be  summoned  when  I  will  for  my 
own  proper  necessities  at  my  pleasure."  * 
That  these  county  courts  were  utilized  by  the 
Norman  kings  for  purposes  of  extortion,  is 
attested  by  the  reluctance  of  the  suitors  to 
attend  their  sessions,2  and  in  the  light  of  that 
fact,  the  "  proper  necessities"  of  the  king  are 
apparently  none  other  than  the  royal  need 
for  money.  But  why,  if  the  assent  of  the 
taxed  was  not  required,  should  the  courts  be 
summoned  to  meet  the  "proper  necessities" 
of  the  crown  ?  Would  that  purpose  be  sub-  in  the 
served  merely  by  making  a  demand  for  money  ? 
Had  that  been  the  fact,  the  courts  might  well 
have  been  left  to  carry  on  their  peculiar 
functions  untroubled,  for  extortion  can  be 
the  more  readily  practiced  king  to  man  than 

1  Ego  enim,  quando  voluero,  faciam  ea  satis  summonere 
propter   mea   dominica   necessaria   ad    voluntatem    meain. 
Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  104. 

2  Cf.  1  Stubbs,  Const .  Hist.  Eng.  429. 


22  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

king  to  people.  The  conclusion  is  reasonable, 
notwithstanding  the  very  large  part  which 
conjecture  plays  in  it,  that  some  form  of 
assent  was  usual  in  the  county  courts  in  re- 
sponse to  the  royal  demands. 

But  there  is  another  piece  of  evidence  which 
points  to  the  National  Council  itself  giving 
assent  to  taxation.  In  the  Chronicle  of  the 
Monastery  of  Abingdon  occurs  a  quotation  of 
an  order  from  Henry  to  his  officers  exempt- 
ing the  lands  of  a  certain  abbot  from  the  pay- 
ment of  an  "aid  which  my  barons  have 
given  me."  *  Whether  or  not  this  statement 
can  be  taken  as  substantiating  the  theory  of 
assent  depends  upon  a  point  of  time;  was  the 
In  the  gift  of  the  barons  before  or  after  the  laying  of 
the  tax  ?  If  the  gift  was  indeed  prior  to  the 
levy,  then  the  evidence  is  conclusive  that  the 
barons  assented  to  taxation;  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  barons  gave  the  aid  after  the  levy 

1 2  Chronicon  Monasterii  de  Abingdon,  113,  quoted  by 
1  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  429,  note  3,  as  follows:  "  H.  rex 
Anglorum  R.  episcopo,  et  Herberto  camerario  et  Hugoni  de 
Bochelanda,  salutem.  Sciatis  quod  clamo  quietas  V  hidas 
abbatis  Faricii  de  Abendona  de  eleemosyna  de  Wrtha,  de 
omnibus  rebus,  et  nominatim  de  isto  auxilio  quod  barones 
mihi  dederunt." 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        23 

had  been  made,  the  statement  refers  solely 
to  the  actual  payment  of  the  tax.  The  tense 
of  the  Latin  verb,  however,  and  the  circum- 
stances in  which  the  king  writes,  seem  to 
point  to  the  former  alternative;  Henry  directs 
that  the  Exchequer  exempt  the  abbot's  lands 
from  the  collection  of  an  aid,  not  which  the 
barons  were  giving  him,  but  which  they  have 
given  him.  It  is  possible  to  infer,  then,  that 
sometimes,  at  least,  the  barons  formally 
assented  to  the  levying  of  an  extraordinary 
aid. 

But  this  assent  must  not  be  taken  as  proof 
that  the  barons  discussed  taxation  in  formal 
session  or  that  they  had  any  generally  recog- 
nized power  of  choice.  None  of  the  records 
of  the  time,  though  they  speak  emphatically 
of  the  oppressiveness  of  the  taxes,1  suggest 

1  The  Saxon  Chronicle  upon  Henry's  taxes: 

A.  1103.  This  was  a  year  of  much  distress  from  the  mani- 
fold taxes. 

A.  1104.  It  is  not  easy  to  describe  the  misery  of  this  land, 
which  it  suffered  at  this  time  through  the  various  and  manifold 
oppressions  and  taxes  that  never  ceased  or  slackened. 

A.  1105.  This  was  a  year  of  great  distress  from  the  failure 
of  the  fruits,  and  from  the  manifold  taxes  which  never  ceased. 

A.  1110.  This  was  a  year  of  much  distress  from  the  taxes 
which  the  king  raised  for  his  daughter's  dowry. 


24  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

that  at  any  time  the  barons  refused  to  give  the 
king  what  he  asked  for.  The  probability  is 
that  Henry  I  sought  baronial  assent  merely 
as  a  matter  of  form,  and  that  he  did  it  out 
of  respect,  more  or  less  conscious,  for  the 
theory  that  contributions  of  a  feudatory  to- 
ward the  support  of  the  crown  should  be  of 
a  nature  voluntary.  The  perfunctory  char- 
acter of  the  assent,  together  with  the  absence 
of  evidence  looking  to  a  refusal,  points  to 
nothing  so  much  as  the  firmness  of  the  royal 
grip  upon  the  purses  of  the  nation. 
Stephen,  During  the  major  part  of  King  Stephen's 
nineteen  turbulent  years,  feudalism  and  an- 
archy ran  hand  in  hand.  Such  progress  as 
had  been  making  toward  parliamentary  taxa- 
tion ceased.  Stephen  showed  himself  an  adept 
at  misgovernment  and  succeeded  in  nothing 
so  well  as  in  his  own  discomfiture. 

Things   went   by   contraries.     Stephen   al- 
lowed the  nobles  to  make  themselves  impreg- 

A.  1118.  England  paid  dearly  for  all  this  (i.  e.,  the  Norman 
war)  by  the  manifold  taxes  which  ceased  not  all  this  year. 

A.  1124.  Full  heavy  a  year  was  this;  he  who  had  any 
property  was  bereaved  of  it  by  heavy  taxes  and  assessments, 
and  he  who  had  none,  starved  with  hunger. 

From  the  edition  of  J.  A.  Giles. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        25 

nable  in  the  royal  castles  and  then  sought  to 
dislodge  them  by  raising  up  a  new  and  hostile 
baronage.  The  nobles,  needing  money  to 
carry  on  war  amongst  themselves  and  against 
the  king,  extorted  it  from  the  people.  "Those 
whom  they  suspected  to  have  any  goods  they 
took  by  night  and  by  day,  seizing  both  men  and 
women,'*  says  the  Saxon  Chronicle,1  "and  they 
put  them  in  prison  for  their  gold  and  silver, 
and  tortured  them  with  pains  unspeakable,  for 
never  were  martyrs  tormented  as  these  were.'* 
And  then,  "They  were  continually  levying 
an  exaction  from  the  towns,  which  they  called 
Tenserie  (a  payment  to  the  superior  lord  for 
protection),  and  when  the  miserable  inhabit- 
ants had  no  more  to  give,  then  plundered 
they  and  burnt  all  the  towns,  so  that  well 
mightest  thou  walk  a  whole  day's  journey  nor 
ever  shouldest  thou  find  a  man  seated  in  a 
town,  or  its  lands  tilled." 

Henry  of  Huntingdon  adds  a  detail  which 
fills  out  the  picture  of  wretchedness.  Speaking 
of  Stephen's  promise  to  abolish  the  Danegeld  in 
1135,  shortly  after  his  accession,  the  chronicler 
says,  "The  king  promised  that  the  Danegeld, 

i  Chron.  Sax.  a.  1137. 


26  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

that  is  two  shillings  for  a  hide  of  land,  which 
his  predecessors  had  received  yearly,  should 
be  given  up  forever.  These  ...  he  promised 
in  the  presence  of  God;  but  he  kept  none  of 
them."  l 

By    the    treaty    of    Wallingford    in    1153, 
Stephen  agreed  that   the   crown   should   de- 
Henry  n,     scend  at  his  death  to  Henry  of  Anjou,2  the  son 

1154-1189 

of  the  Empress  Matilda,  and  great-grandson 
of  the  Conqueror.  The  treaty  provided,  also, 
for  comprehensive  reforms  which  Stephen,  a 
melancholy  figure  in  contrast  with  the  vigor- 
ous Henry,  tried  to  work  out.  Stephen  died 
at  the  end  of  a  year's  attempt  to  put  in  opera- 
tion the  new  programme  and  Henry  came  to 
the  throne.  Henry's  reign  was  marked  by  a 
regular  and  peaceful  administration  of  the 
government  which  had  its  rise  in  the  genius 
of  the  king  for  organization.  It  witnessed 
too  the  struggle  with  Thomas  a  Becket,  a 

1  Henry  of  Huntingdon's  Chronicle,  a.  1135.     Trans,  by 
Thomas  Forester,  264. 

2  Henry  II  was  the  first  king  since  Edward  the  Confessor 
in  whose  veins  ran  the  blood  of  the  Saxon  monarchs,  being 
the  grandson  of  Matilda,  wife  of  Henry  I.     Matilda  was 
great-granddaughter  of  Edmund  Ironside,  the  son  of  Ethelred 
the  Unready. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        27 

conflict  which  has  been  pointed  to  as  "the 
first  instance  of  any  opposition  to  the  king's 
will  in  the  matter  of  taxation  which  is  recorded 
in  our  national  history."  l 

The  story  of  it  is  full  of  dramatic  interest. 
At  the  Council  of  Woodstock  in  1163,  "the  Contro- 


question    was    moved,"    so    goes    the    Latin          ™ 


narrative,    "concerning    a    certain    custom."  over  the 

Sheriff's 
This  custom,  which  amounted  to  two  shillings  Aid 

from  each  hide,  had  previously  fallen  to  the 
sheriffs,  but  this  "the  king,"  so  continues  the 
Latin  account,  "wished  to  enroll  in  the  treas- 
ury and  add  to  his  own  revenues."  2 

In  response  to  this,  Becket  is  recorded  as 
saying,  "Not  as  revenue,  my  lord  king,  saving 
your  pleasure,  will  we  give  it  :  but  if  the  sheriffs 
and  servants  and  ministers  of  the  shires  will 
serve  us  worthily  and  defend  our  dependents, 
we  will  not  fail  in  giving  them  their  aid."  3 

1  1  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  500. 

2  Grim,  V.  S.  Thomae,  21,  22,  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  129. 

3  Bishop  Stubbs  (1  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  500)  believes  this 
struggle  between  Henry  II  and  Becket  to  have  been  the  death- 
blow to  the  levy  of  the  Danegeld,  which  is  not  noted  in  the 
Pipe  Rolls  after  1163.    J.  H.  Round  [Feudal  England,  497- 
502,  in  the  paper  "The  Alleged  Dispute  on  Danegeld  (1163)  "], 
effectually  establishes  his  contention  that  the  tax  in  question 
was  not  the  Danegeld,  but  the  "auxilium  vicecomitis"  or 


28  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

This  was  from  the  chancellor  turned  arch- 
bishop. In  his  former  estate  Becket  had  not 
shrunk  from  pressing  money  composition 
for  military  service  from  prelates  holding 
land  of  the  crown  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
tenants-in-chief  and  therefore  owed  service 
of  arms  to  the  king.  But  now  he  had  changed 
his  masters  and  stood  champion  of  the  church. 

To  him  Henry  returned,  "By  the  eyes  of 
God,  it  shall  be  given  as  revenue,  and  it  shall 
be  entered  in  the  king's  accounts;  and  you 
have  no  right  to  contradict;  no  man  wishes 
to  oppress  your  men  against  your  will." 

"My  lord  king,"  Becket  declared,  "by  the 
reverence  of  the  eyes  by  which  you  have  sworn, 
it  shall  not  be  given  from  my  land  and  from 
the  rights  of  the  church  not  a  penny." 

Apparently  for  the  moment  the  archbishop 
won  his  point,  but  from  that  time  on,  Becket 
and  the  king  stood  apart.  The  continuation 
of  the  struggle  between  them  at  Westminster 
the  following  October;  the  Constitutions  of 
Clarendon,  sweeping  away  much  of  the  exclu- 
sive authority  which  previously  had  charac- 

"  Sheriff's  aid,"  which  was  a  customary,  variable  charge  paid 
over  locally  to  the  sheriffs  in  payment  for  their  services. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        29 

terized  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction;  the  flight  of 
Becket  into  France;  the  coronation  of  the 
young  Henry  by  the  Archbishop  of  York  to 
the  prejudice  of  Becket,  and  the  latter's  dec- 
laration of  illegality;  these  and  the  martyr- 
dom of  the  archbishop,  are  parts  of  another 
story. 

Exactly  what  were  the  motives  of  Becket  The  issue 
in  making  his  stand  against  the  king  at  the 


Council  of  Woodstock,  are  somewhat  difficult  Contro- 

•  rm        •  •         versy,  1163 

ot  determination.  Ine  interest  or  me  king 
was  obvious  ;  he  wished  to  increase  his  revenue 
by  annexing  the  "auxilium  vicecomitis"  or 
"Sheriff's  aid,"  which  had  not  gone  into  the 
royal  treasury  at  all  but  had  served  to  swell 
the  private  income  of  the  sheriffs.  Whether 
Becket,  "  standing  on  the  sure  ground  of 
existing  custom,"  *  objects  to  change  merely 
because  it  was  a  change  ;  or  whether  he  had  in 
mind  some  lofty  democratic  principle,  and 
took  his  stand  against  the  royal  power  in 
favor  of  the  lesser  folk  through  some  flush  of 
democratic  fervor,  is  not  only  impossible  of 
being  decided,  but  the  decision  would  not  be 
of  strict  relevance  to  the  subject.  The  two 

i  Round,  Feudal  England,  501. 


30  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

points  to  observe,  and  they  are  perfectly 
evident,  are  that  Becket's  stand  against  the 
king  did  not  concern  a  new  levy  of  taxes,  but 
an  imposition  already  customary;  and  that 
the  king  asserted  Becket's  incompetency  to 
interfere.  Becket  had  presumed  to  take  a 
hand  in  a  matter  connected  with  taxation; 
the  king  had  denied  him  that  right,  though 
the  archbishop  was  the  chief  member  of  his 
National  Council.  Therein  lay  a  great  issue. 

A  number  of  other  incidents  of  the  reign 
of  Henry  II,  though  they  lack  the  color  of 
a  controversy  between  archbishop  and  mon- 
arch, are  nevertheless  worthy  of  consideration. 
Scutage  The  imposition  in  1159  of  the  Great  Scutage, 
despite  the  fact  that  it  came  as  a  feudal 
charge  rather  than  as  a  form  of  regular  taxa- 
tion, .  assumes  great  importance  in  view  of 
the  part  that  scutage  played  in  the  evolution 
of  the  taxing  power. 

Scutage  is  generally  considered  as  one  of 
the  forms  of  "  commutation  for  personal 
service,"  and  commutation  was  undoubtedly 
the  underlying  idea  of  the  imposition.1  The 
payment  was  made  for  every  knight  owing 

1  Baldwin,  Scutage  and  Knight  Service  in  England,  12. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        31 

military  service.  Each  knight  holding  of  the 
king  was  expected  to  serve  in  the  field  for 
forty  days.  Eight  pence  a  day  in  the  reign 
of  Henry  II  was  the  usual  wages  of  a  knight, 
and  for  forty  days  the  wages  would  amount 
to  two  marks,  which  was  the  sum  most 
commonly  paid  in  lieu  of  personal  service. 
It  was  in  its  earlier  phase  distinctly  a  feudal 
charge. 

Payment  of  scutage,  like  most  of  the  other  Early  in- 
forms of  feudal  and  general  taxation,  struck 
its  roots  far  into  the  past.  Bishop  Stubbs 
fixes  1156  as  the  year  in  which  the  term  scu- 
tage was  first  employed.1  Others  find  coun- 
terparts in  various  payments  to  the  sovereign 
in  the  time  before  and  shortly  after  the  Con- 
quest. In  the  reign  of  Henry  I  the  practice 
of  allowing  ecclesiastics  to  compound  at  a 
fixed  rate  for  the  knight-service  due  from 
their  estates  was  generally  followed.  The 
privilege  was  sometimes  extended  to  mesne 
tenants.2  One  writer 3  points  to  Ranulf  Flam- 

1 1  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  491. 

2  H.  W.  C.  Davis,  England  under  the  Normans  and  Ange- 
vins,  205. 

3  Miss  Kate  Norgate,  Angevin  Kings,  432. 


32  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

bard's  device  in  1093,  when  he  took  from  the 
men  of  the  fyrd  the  money  which  had  been 
given  them  for  the  purchase  of  supplies  while 
on  the  march.  Others 1  suggest  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  fyrdwite,  the  payment  made  by  the 
king's  men  when  they  were  absent  from  the 
royal  train  in  war  time  as  the  analogy  and 
precedent  for  scutage.  It  seems  more  likely 
that  the  king  and  his  vassals  adopted  a  money 
payment  in  lieu  of  service  because  it  was 
convenient  for  both  of  them.2  The  king 
thereby  got  the  means  for  the  enlistment  of 
a  body  of  mercenaries,  subject  to  his  absolute 
will,  and  the  barons  were  relieved,  if  so  they 
pleased,  of  the  burden  of  military  service. 
The  Great  The  levy  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  Great 
iiS9 g6'  Scutage  was  made  in  1159.  Henry  II  was 
considering  an  expedition  into  France  against 
the  Count  of  Toulouse.  He  had  a  claim  to 
the  latter's  lands  through  the  inheritance  of 
his  wife,  the  Duchess  of  Aquitaine.  The 
English  baronage,  by  the  terms  of  their  feudal 
tenure,  were  bound  to  follow  their  lord  into 
the  field.  Nevertheless  a  distaste  had  arisen 

1 1  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  494. 

2  Baldwin,  Scutage  and  Knight  Service  in  England,  5. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        33 

of  late  among  them  for  service  abroad,  and 
it  was  natural  enough,  therefore,  that  they 
should  fall  in  with  the  scheme  of  Henry  and 
his  adviser,  Thomas  a  Becket,  for  a  commu- 
tation in  money.  Henry  levied  a  charge  of 
two  marks  («£!,  6s.  Sd.)  on  the  knight's  fee 
of  ,£20,  annual  value,  from  such  of  his  vassals 
as  chose  not  to  follow  him  into  France.1 

The  authority  by  which  this  payment  was 
demanded  was  apparently  solely  that  of  the 
king.  It  is  probable  that  the  levy  was  un- 
questioned. In  view  of  the  facts  that  this 
was  merely  a  change,  and  possibly  no  very 
great  change,  in  the  method  of  meeting  a 
regular  feudal  obligation,  and  that  many  of 
the  barons  were  willing  to  avail  themselves 
of  a  means  of  escaping  the  burden  of  foreign 
service,  the  want  of  a  recorded  protest  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at.  The  chronicler  puts  it 
plainly  and  probably  with  accuracy  when  he 
says  that  Henry  "received"  a  scutage.2  It 

1  2  Stubbs,  ed.  Gesta  Regis  Henrici  Secundi  Benedicti  Ab- 
batis,  preface  xcv-xcvii,  cites  other  instances  of  scutage  in  this 
reign:  1161,  for  debts  incurred  in  the  Welsh  war;  1172,  for 
the  expedition  into  Ireland;  1186,  for  the  expedition  into 
Galloway  against  the  Irish  prince,  Ronald. 

2Gervas,  c.   1381,  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  129:  Hoc 


34  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

was  profitable  for  the  king.  The  chronicler 
puts  the  proceeds  at  "  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
four  pounds  of  silver." 

Theobald's       Three  years  previously,  however,  an  eccle- 

complaint,       .       .      ,  i    •    ,  •     j  •  •     • 

11S6  siastical  complaint  was  raised  against  a  simi- 

lar imposition.  In  1156  such  prelates  as  held 
their  lands  by  military  tenure  were  directed 
to  compound  for  soldierly  service  which  their 
character  of  churchmen  precluded  them  from 
rendering.1  Some  thirty-five  bishops  and 
abbots  paid  the  assessment,  but  Archbishop 
Theobald  raised  vigorous  protest.2  He  ob- 
jected, apparently,  not  out  of  principle,  but 
because  he  could  not  see  that  the  exaction  was 
necessary.3  This  probability,  together  with 
the  further  considerations  that  the  demand 
was  not  a  demand  for  a  new  tax  but  merely 
that  the  prelates  compound  for  an  obligation 
long  recognized  as  lawful,  and  that  there  were 
precedents  for  precisely  this  sort  of  commuta- 

anno  (1159)  rex  Henricus  scutagium  sive  scutagium  de  Anglia 
accepit,  cujus  summa  fuit  centum  millia  et  quater  viginti 
millia  librarum  argenti. 

1  Liber  Riibeus  de  Scaccario,  Hubert  Hall,  editor,  6,  16-18. 

2  John  of  Salisbury,  ep.  128,  noted  by  1  Stubbs,  Const. 
Hist.  Eng.  492,  note  1. 

8  Round,  Feudal  England,  274. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        35 

tion,  makes  Theobald's  protest  not  of  great 
importance.  He  did  not  question,  strictly 
speaking,  the  right  of  the  king  to  levy  taxes  at 
all. 

The  remainder  of  the  reign  of  Henry  II,  Early  step 

aside  from  the  fact  that  it  witnessed  the  tern-  *oward  a 

tax  on 

porary  passing  of  the  Danegeld,1  derives  its  movables 
chief  importance  by  reason  of  the  extension 
of  taxation  to  cover  personal  property.  By 
the  Assize  of  Arms  in  1181,  "every  free  lay- 
man who  had  in  chattels  or  in  revenue  to  the 
value  of  sixteen  marks"  was  to  "have  a  coat 
of  mail  and  a  helmet  and  a  shield  and  a  lance ; " 
and  "every  free  layman  who  had  in  chattels 
or  revenue  ten  marks  should  have  a  hauberk 
and  a  head-piece  of  iron  and  a  lance."  2 
Here  was  a  step  toward  laying  movables  and 
personal  property  open  to  taxation.  Seven 
years  later,  when  Saladin  had  cut  his  way  into 
Jerusalem,  personal  property  was  forced  to 

contribute  toward  the  Crusade.    This  tax,  the  The 

Saladin 

so-called  "  Saladin  tithe,"  was  laid  at  the  Coun-  Tithe,  nss 

1  The  Danegeld  disappears  from  the  Rolls  in  1163.     It 
persists,  probably,  however,  as  a  "donum"  or  an  "auxilium." 
The  "carucage"  of  Richard  I  is  the  Danegeld  under  another 
name. 

2  2  Benedict,  278.    Also  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  153. 


36  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

cil  of  Geddington  on  the  llth  February,  1188. 
Present  at  it  were  archbishops  and  bishops 
and  the  greater  and  lesser  barons,1  but  it  is 
not  stated  whether  or  not  they  gave  a  formal 
consent  to  the  levy.  "This  year,"  so  goes  the 
Ordinance,  "each  one  shall  give  in  alms  a 
tenth  part  of  his  revenues  and  movables, 
except  the  arms  and  horses  and  clothing  of 
the  knights;  likewise  excepting  the  horses 
and  books  and  clothing  and  vestments  and 
articles  required  in  divine  service  of  whatever 
sort  of  the  clerks,  and  the  precious  stones  both 
of  clerks  and  laymen."  This  is  the  earliest 
recorded  instance  of  a  general  tax  upon 
movables.  For  the  assessment  and  collection 
of  the  Saladin  tithe,  Henry  adopted  a  scheme 
favorite  with  him,  which  had  been  utilized 
in  England  for  national  purposes  at  least 
Assess-  since  the  time  of  the  Domesday  Survey.  It 
juries  of  was  ordained  that  the  assessment  be  done 
inquest  ^y  juries  of  inquest;  thus  the  taxpayers  them- 
selves were  instruments  in  the  determination 
of  how  much  each  should  pay,  even  though  the 
determination  of  how  much  the  gross  payment 
should  be  was  as  yet  far  beyond  their  power. 
1 2  Benedict,  33. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        37 

Henry  II  closed  his  reign  in  1189.  His 
taxation  l  had  never  been  exceptionally  heavy, 
though  it  had  been  the  occasion  for  protest 
and  had  served  as  the  pretext  in  1174  for  a 
little  warring  with  his  barons.  In  the  matter 
of  royal  authority  over  taxation,  the  power  of 
the  king  to  levy  taxes  was  not  much  diminished. 
The  instances  of  opposition  that  have  been 
cited  do  not  prove  much  more  than  that  now 
and  then  complaining  voices  were  raised  in 
the  Great  Council;  nowhere  is  it  shown  that 
the  objections  had  more  than  passing  value, 
much  less  that  they  were  conclusive. 

The  year  after  the  laying  of  the  Saladin 
tithe,  Henry  died.  Of  his  four  sons,  two  were 
dead  and  two  had  taken  up  arms  against  him. 
His  first  son,  who  he  had  hoped  would  succeed 
him  as  Henry  III,  was  dead,  and  so  too  was 
Geoffrey,  the  father  of  the  luckless  Arthur; 
Richard,  his  second  son,  was  for  the  moment 
the  ally  of  Philip  of  France;  and  John,  whom 
the  king  had  loved  above  the  others,  now  as 

1  Beside  the  instances  of  taxation  noted  above,  the  follow- 
ing are  noteworthy:  1168,  a  regular  feudal  aid,  pur  file 
marier  of  one  mark  on  the  knight's  fee;  1173,  exchequer 
officers  held  courts  and  exacted  at  the  same  time  a  tallage 
throughout  the  country. 


38  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

afterward  seeking  his  own  advantage,  had  re- 
cently taken  his  place  amongst  the  rebellious 
barons  who  had  made  common  cause  with 
the  king  of  France.  This  blow,  coming  on 
top  of  his  unfavorable  peace  with  Philip, 
struck  the  old  king  to  the  heart,  and  cleared 
the  throne  for  Richard. 

Richard  I,  Richard  was  not,  in  the  fullest  sense  of 
the  word,  an  English  king.  His  heart  was  on 
the  Continent;  England  he  regarded  as  a 
treasure-house,  and  he  left  the  administra- 
tion of  it  to  his  justiciars.  Along  with  the  ex- 
action of  feudal  incidents  and  other  and  more 
special  forms  of  taxation,  Richard  worked 
the  machinery  of  the  laws  to  its  maximum 
capacity  for  what  money  it  would  bring  him. 
He  sold  bishoprics  and  ministries,  and  re- 
leased malefactors  from  prison  for  a  considera- 
tion; sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Ranulf 
Glanville,  his  father's  treasurer,  he  threw 
men  into  prison  on  shadowy  charges  and 
forced  them  to  buy  their  release.  But  all  was 
under  the  guise  of  legality;  Richard,  unlike 
John,  and  much  like  Henry  VIII,  knew  how 
to  gain  his  end  and  yet  adhere  to  the  letter 
of  the  law. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        39 

On  his  way  back  from  the  Crusade  near  the  Richard's 
close  of  the  year  1192,  Richard  fell  into  the 
hands  of  his  enemy,  Leopold,  Duke  of  Austria. 
Leopold  turned  him  over  to  his  feudal  supe- 
rior, the  Emperor  Henry  VI,  and  he  held 
Richard  for  a  ransom  of  .£100,000.  The 
levy  of  the  king's  ransom  was  one  of  the  three 
regular  feudal  aids  l  for  which  the  subjects 
were  responsible.  The  magnitude  of  Richard's 
ransom,  however,  brings  it  out  of  strictly  feudal 
history  into  the  domain  of  taxation.  In  the 
letter  which  Richard  wrote  from  his  German 
prison  to  his  mother,  the  Queen  Eleanor, 
and  to  his  justiciars,  he  said,  "For  becoming 
reasons  it  is  that  we  are  prolonging  our  stay 
with  the  Emperor,  until  his  business  and  our 
own  shall  be  brought  to  an  end,  and  until  we 
shall  have  paid  him  seventy  thousand  marks 
of  silver."  The  amount  of  the  ransom  was 
subsequently  raised  to  one  hundred  thousand 
marks,  with  an  additional  fifty  thousand 
exacted  as  the  price  of  not  assisting  the  Em- 
peror in  his  war  to  regain  Apulia.  Thus 

1  The  three  auxilia  are:  For  the  ransom  of  the  king,  for 
the  marriage  of  the  king's  eldest  daughter,  and  for  the  knight- 
ing of  his  eldest  son. 


40 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


It  involves 
heavy  and 
novel 
taxation 


England  became  liable  for  the  payment  of  a 
sum  aggregating  £100,000. 

The  effort  to  raise  so  great  a  sum  revived 
all  the  forms  of  taxation  known  to  England  in 
earlier  years,  and  laid  the  basis  for  certain 
methods  of  acquiring  money  previously  un- 
known. The  justiciars  took  "from  every 
knight's  fee  twenty  shillings,1  and  the  fourth 
part  of  all  the  incomes  of  the  laity,  and  all 
the  chalices  of  the  churches,  besides  the  other 
treasures  of  the  church.  Some  of  the  bishops, 
also,  took  from  the  clergy  the  fourth  part  of 
their  revenues,  while  others  took  a  tenth  for 
the  ransom  of  the  king."  2  In  addition  to  the 
property  there  stated  as  having  been  levied 
upon,  the  lands  of  tenants  in  socage  yielded 
two  shillings  on  the  hide  or  carucate,3  personal 
property  to  the  amount  of  a  fourth  of  its 
value,  and  the  wool  of  the  Cistercians  and 

1  Other  scutages  in  this  reign  were:  1189,  10s.  on  the 
knight's  fee  for  a  pretended  expedition  into  Wales;  1195,  20s. 
on  the  knight's  fee  from  those  who  did  not  follow  the  king 
to  Normandy;  1196,  20s.  for  the  same  reason.  1  Dowell, 
Taxation  and  Taxes,  41. 

23Rogeri  de  Hoveden,  Chronica,  W.  Stubbs,  ed.  209- 
225. 

3  This  carucage  appears  in  the  Rolls  under  the  year  1194. 
It  was  demanded  at  the  Council  of  Nottingham. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        41 

Gilber tines.  Thus  every  person  in  the  king- 
dom, was  laid  under  contribution.  Later 
kings  found  all  of  these  means  of  raising 
revenue  exceedingly  fruitful,  and  some  of 
them  served  as  precedents  for  taxes  which 
played  great  parts  in  the  struggle  for  the 
control  of  the  public  purse.1 

The  authority  by  which  the  impositions  The  king 
were  laid  was  apparently  solely  that  of  the  authority 
king.  Speaking  of  the  letter  which  Richard  for  the 
addressed  to  his  mother  and  the  justiciars, 
urging  upon  them  the  necessity  for  raising 
money  for  the  ransom,  the  Chronicler  says, 
"Upon  the  authority  of  this  letter  the  king's 
mother  and  the  justiciars  of  England  deter- 
mined that  all  the  clergy  as  well  as  the  laity 
ought  to  give  .  .  .  for  the  ransom  of  our  lord 
the  king."  He  speaks  of  the  exactions  having 
been  taken.  The  fact  that  there  is  no  definite 
record  of  deliberation  or  even  of  assent  by 
the  National  Council  to  the  enormous  de- 
mand which  the  ransom  of  the  king  laid 
upon  England,  and  that  no  serious  objection 
was  raised  to  the  collection,  ordered  upon  the 
authority  of  queen  and  justices,  is  a  comment 

1  Rogeri  de  Hoveden,  preface  to  vol.  IV,  Ixxxii-lxxxvii. 


42  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

both  upon  the  weariness  of  the  nation  and  its 
respect  for  the  ancient  feudal  aid. 

Richard's  When  Richard  was  finally  released  from 
subsequent  durance  m  Austria,  he  returned  to  England, 
levies  Remembering  the  success  which  met  his  first 
visit  to  the  island  at  the  time  of  his  corona- 
tion, he  proceeded  to  set  his  machinery  going 
despite  the  financial  decrepitude  of  the  na- 
tion. The  account  of  his  Great  Council  at 
Nottingham,  called  near  the  last  of  March, 
1194,  illustrates  not  only  his  ingenious  methods 
of  making  extra-customary  feudal  exactions 
but  also  the  manner  in  which  he  levied  his 
non-feudal  impositions.  The  Council,  which 
was  not  very  fully  attended,  was  composed  of 
the  archbishops,  bishops,  and  earls.  On  the 
first  day,  he  removed  from  office  all  the 
sheriffs  of  Lincolnshire  and  Yorkshire,  and 
proceeded  to  sell  their  places  to  Archbishop 
Geoffrey  of  York,  who  paid  3000  marks  1  on 
the  spot  with  a  promise  of  100  marks  by  way 
of  annual  increment.  Having  thus  spent  his 
first  day,  on  the  second  he  contented  himself 
with  issuing  orders  against  his  contumacious 
brother  John.  But  on  the  third  day  he  de- 

1  The  mark  was  the  equivalent  of  two-thirds  of  a  pound. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        43 

manded  the  third  part  of  the  service  of  the 
knights,  the  wool  of  the  Cistercians  for  which 
he  was  willing  to  accept  a  composition,  and  a 
carucage  of  two  shillings.1  This  last,  which 
was  the  lineal  descendant  of  the  Danegeld, 
a  land  tax  on  the  carucate,  he  apparently  did 
not  exact  upon  any  other  authority  than  his 
own.  The  king  "  determined  that  there  should 
be  granted  to  him  out  of  every  carucate  of 
land  through  out  the  whole  of  England,  the 
sum  of  two  shillings." 2  His  action  carries  out 
the  theory  that  the  voice  of  the  king  in  his 
Council  was  supreme  in  matters  of  taxation, 
and  that  the  promulgation  of  a  tax  levy  was 
rather  accepted  in  the  character  of  an  edict 
than  as  inviting  discussion.  The  deduction, 
however,  that  the  individuals  composing  that 
Council  were  barred  from  objecting  to  a  tax 
or  even  refusing  to  pay  it,  is  not  well  founded; 
the  time  had  not  yet  come  when  the  individual 
felt  himself  bound  by  the  tacit  acquiescence 

1  Carucage,  a   land-tax    based  upon   the   carucate,    "  the 
quantity  of  land  that  could   be  ploughed  by  one  plough, 
caruca,  full  team  of  eight  oxen  in  a  season."    1  Dowell, 
Taxation  and  Taxes,  p.  35.     Roger  of  Hoveden  sets  down 
the  equivalent  of  the  carucate  as  being  100  acres, — iv.  47. 

2  3  Rogeri  de  Hovoden,  242. 


44  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

of  the  Council.  If  he  were  strong  enough  to 
withstand  the  royal  displeasure,  he  could 
refuse  payment. 

Richard  levied  a  second  carucage  in  1198, 
"from  each  carucate  or  hide  of  land  through- 
out all  England  five  shillings."  Here,  too, 
he  acted  upon  his  own  authority,  and  the 
Chronicler  does  not  refer  to  the  summons  of 
a  Council,  or  the  participation  of  the  magnates 
in  the  laying  of  the  tax.  The  assessment  of 
it  followed  the  plan  pursued  by  Henry  II,  in 
that  the  liability  of  the  taxpayer  was  deter- 
mined by  means  of  a  jury  of  inquest.  Against 
the  payment  of  the  imposition  the  men  of  the 
religious  orders  demurred,  whereupon  an  edict 
of  outlawry  came  immediately  from  Richard. 
Esteeming  the  payment  of  the  tax  the  lighter 
burden,  the  friars  yielded. 
Hugh  of  The  same  year,  1198,  furnishes  us  with 

Lincoln       what  is  by  far  the  most  noteworthy  and  inter- 
refuses  J  * 

assent  in     esting  incident  of  the  reign  of  King  Richard, 

Council       an  event  which  is  taken  to  be  "a  landmark 

1198  of    constitutional    history." l      Through    his 

efficient  justiciar,  Archbishop  Hubert  Walter, 

the  king  laid  before  his  Council  at  Oxford  a 

1 1  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  548. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        45 

plan  whereby  he  "required  that  the  people  of 
the  kingdom  of  England  should  find  for  him 
three  hundred  knights  to  remain  in  his  service 
one  year,  or  else  give  him  so  much  money  as 
to  enable  him  therewith  to  retain  in  his  service 
three  hundred  knights  for  one  year,  namely 
three  shillings  per  day,  English  money,  as  the 
livery  of  each  knight."  l  The  way  in  which 
Hubert  Walter's  proposition  was  met  throws 
light  upon  the  subservience  of  the  National 
Council.  "While  all  the  rest  were  ready  to 
comply  with  this,"  the  Chronicler  proceeds, 
"not  daring  to  oppose  the  king's  wishes, 
Hugh,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  a  true  worshipper  of 
God,  who  withheld  himself  from  every  evil 
work,  made  answer  that  for  his  part  he  would 
never  in  this  one  matter  acquiesce  in  the 
king's  desires."  Now,  if  it  could  be  estab- 
lished that  the  bishop  raised  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  king  had  a  right  to  lay  an  imposi- 
tion upon  the  baronage  and  to  require  their 
assent,  then  we  would  be  justified  in  saying 
that  Hugh's  refusal  went  far  toward  antici- 
pating future  history.  But  the  evidence  does 
not  uphold  so  generous  an  inference.  In 
1  4  Rogeri  de  Hoveden,  40. 


46  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  first  place,  it  seems  highly  questionable 
whether  Hubert  Walter  really  offered  the 
alternative  of  a  money  payment,1  a  conclu- 
sion which  reduces  the  debate  to  one  on  foreign 
service.  But  Hugh  even  here  did  not  raise 
the  general  question.  "I  know,"  he  is  quoted 
as  saying,  "that  the  see  of  Lincoln  is  held 
by  military  service  to  our  lord  the  king,  but 
it  has  to  be  furnished  in  this  land  alone; 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  England  nothing 
of  the  kind  is  due  from  it."  2  Hugh,  therefore, 
refused  to  comply  with  the  royal  request  on 
purely  feudal  grounds.  Basing  his  objection 
on  ecclesiastical  privilege,  he  registered  his 
refusal  for  the  see  of  Lincoln  alone;  he  did 
not  take  his  stand  in  behalf  of  the  barons  or 
even  of  the  whole  body  of  churchmen.  The 
issue  as  to  their  relative  powers  to  tax  was 
not  raised  between  king  and  Council,  and  the 
withdrawal  of  Hubert  Walter's  demand  did 
not  constitute  one  of  the  first  victories  over 
arbitrary  taxation.  The  withdrawal  itself 

1  The  implication  in  Vita  Magna  S.  Hugonis  is  to  this 
effect.    Vid.  Round.  Feudal  England,  528  et  seq. 

2  Vita  Magna  S.  Htigonis,  248,  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters, 
255. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        47 

seems  to  have  had  its  disagreeable  conse- 
quences. Herbert,  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  who 
stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  Hugh  of 
Lincoln  in  his  opposition,  had  to  pay  a  heavy 
fine  for  his  part  in  the  contest,  and  the  Abbot 
of  St.  Edmund's  was  obliged  to  win  back 
royal  favor  with  a  gift  of  a  hundred  pounds 
which  he  made  in  addition  to  the  pay  of  four 
knights  for  forty  days. 

Richard's  reign  covered  only  a  decade,  six 
months  of  which  he  spent  in  England.1  Not- 
withstanding his  long  absence,  during  which 
the  National  Council  began  in  some  small 
degree  to  feel  itself  able  to  get  along  without 
the  royal  presence,  the  authority  of  the  king 
as  the  supreme  initiator  of  taxation  remained 
unquestioned.  In  the  assessing  of  taxes, 

1  Beside  the  instances  of  taxation  cited  above,  Richard  ex- 
acted from  the  tenants  of  the  royal  demesne  a  tax  upon  mova- 
bles known  as  tallage.  It  was  semi-feudal  in  nature,  being 
taken  from  the  dwellers  on  land  held  immediately  of  the  king, 
and  consequently  the  authority  of  the  tax  for  the  time  was 
far  beyond  question,  save  as  the  turbulent  elements  in  the 
urban  populations  might  assume  it  as  a  pretext  for  a  riot. 
Henry  II  levied  this  tax  in  1168,  1173;  Richard  in  1189  and 
1194,  and  probably  upon  other  occasions.  These  are  the  only 
references  to  tallages  in  the  Rolls  of  these  two  reigns.  The 
term  appears  frequently  in  later  records. 


48  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

however,  the  taxpayers  had  more  participa- 
tion. The  justiciars  of  Richard  continued 
Henry  II's  practice  of  assessment  through  a 
representative  jury. 

John,  John,  the  youngest  son  of  Henry  II,  the 

1199-1216  tnmnes(;  figure  that  ever  sat  upon  the  Eng- 
lish throne,  succeeded  to  the  crown  some  six 
weeks  after  the  tragic  passing  of  Richard. 
Richard  was  the  creation  of  his  own  times, 
the  incarnation  of  the  mediaeval  spirit,  and 
where  it  fell  short  he  fell  short.  To  attribute 
the  meanness  of  his  brother  to  any  condi- 
tions of  environment  would  be  to  perpetrate 
a  slander  upon  the  times.  Yet,  notwithstand- 
ing the  vileness  of  the  king,  there  eventuated 
from  his  reign  the  first  of  the  three  books 
in  what  Lord  Chatham  denominated  "the 
Bible  of  the  English  Constitution."  The  prog- 
ress toward  the  finished  writing  of  Magna 
Carta,  especially  in  so  far  as  the  events  con- 
cern laying  of  taxes,  is  the  next  step  in  this 
history. 

An  interregnum  of  six  weeks  elapsed  be- 
tween the  death  of  Richard  and  the  coming 
to  England  of  John.  Then  Archbishop  Hu- 
bert Walter  set  the  crown  upon  his  head  and 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        49 

declared  him  elected  to  the  kingship.  John's 
stay  in  England  was  necessarily  brief,  be- 
cause Philip  II  of  France  was  already  in  a 
fair  way  to  win  his  possessions  on  the  far 
side  of  the  Channel.  For  his  expedition  into 
Normandy  John  exacted  a  scutage  of  two 
marks  on  the  knight's  fee;  the  rate  was  un- 
usually high,  almost  without  precedent. 

Being  unable  to  make  head  against  Philip,  John's 
John  concluded  a  truce  for  which  he  had  to 
pay  30,000  marks.  The  Jews  had  to  pay  a 
good  deal  of  it  and  in  addition  John  took  a 
carucage  of  three  shillings  on  the  carucate, 
which,  like  the  charge  of  scutage,  was  an 
exceedingly  high  rate.  John  laid  this  imposi- 
tion, apparently,  solely  upon  his  own  authority ; 
Roger  Hoveden  says  that  he  "took"  the  caru- 
cage and  makes  no  mention  of  a  Council.1 
He  demanded  the  aid,  and  the  justices  is- 
sued the  edicts.  In  1201  John  contributed,  at 
the  instance  of  a  papal  delegate,  a  fortieth 
of  his  revenues  for  the  Crusade;  from  his 
barons  he  urged  a  similar  offering,  not  "as  a 
matter  of  right  or  of  custom  or  of  compulsion." 
Freeholders  and  tenants  by  knight's  service 
i  4  Roger!  de  Hoveden,  107. 


50  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

paid  at  a  similar  rate ;  just  what  liberty  they  had 
in  refusal  is  shown  in  the  direction  of  Geoffrey 
Fitz-Peter,  the  justiciar,  at  the  end  of  his  ad- 
dress to  the  sheriffs :  "  And  if  any  persons  shall 
refuse  to  give  their  consent  to  the  said  col- 
lection, their  names  are  to  be  entered  in  the 
register,  and  made  known  to  us  at  London."  l 
In  the  same  year  he  exacted  a  scutage  at  the 
high  rate  of  two  marks  on  the  knight's  fee. 

The  importance  of  the  part  which  scutage 

played  in  the  tragedy  of  John  can  hardly  be 

overestimated;  it  was  the  great  moving  cause 

which  brought  about  the  crisis  of  1215  and 

Scutage,  a    Magna  Carta.    Not  only  did  John  raise  scu- 

leading  to    *aSe  ^°  an  amount  which  had  not  been  equalled 

toe  since  the  Scutage  of  Toulouse  in  1159,  but  he 

Charter  .       .  . 

levied  it  as  though  it  were  a  regular  and  almost 

annual  obligation.  Previously  understood  as  a 
commutation  arranged  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
king  for  knight's  service  not  rendered,  as  an 
extraordinary  impost  reserved  for  extraordi- 
nary occasions,  John  changed  its  character 
and  used  it  as  a  means  of  supplying  his  heavy 
financial  needs,  irrespective  of  customary  right 
or  of  shrewd  policy. 

»  4  Rogeri  de  Hoveden,  188,  189. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION 


51 


John  began  with  a  demand  of  two  marks  on 
the  knight's  fee.1  The  barons  had  accustomed 
themselves,  during  the  reigns  of  Henry  and 
Richard,  to  expect  at  the  outside  a  demand  of 
twenty  shillings ;  sometimes  indeed  the  imposi- 
tion had  fallen  to  a  single  mark  or  even  as 
low  as  ten  shillings.  His  second  scutage  came 
in  the  third  year  of  his  reign,  two  marks  on 
the  fee.  Then  for  four  successive  years  John 
kept  his  barons  on  edge  with  annual  scutages 
of  two  marks  each.  In  1205-06,  apparently 
fearing  a  storm,  he  reduced  his  imposition  to 
twenty  shillings,  and  then  waited  for  three 
years  before  laying  another.  The  three  years 
of  relief,  however,  were  not  as  innocent  as 
they  seem;  it  was  in  1207  that  John  broke 

1  Miss  Kate  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  123,  note  1,  gives  a 
corrected  version  of  the  list  of  scutages  given  in  1  Liber  Rvbeus 
de  Scaccario,  10-12: 
First        scutage  of  John   1198-1199,    2  marks  on  the  knight's  fee. 


Second 

Third 

Fourth 

Fifth 

Sixth 

Seventh 

Eighth 

Ninth 

Tenth 

Eleventh 


1200-1201,   2 
1201-1202,    2 
1202-1203,    2 
1203-1204,    2 
1204-1205,    2 
1205-1206,  20  shillings 
1209-1210,   2  marks 
1210-1211,    2       " 
1210-1211,  20  shillings 
1213-1214,   3  marks 


52  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

with  the  Pope,  and  the  freedom  to  plunder 
ecclesiastics  which  this  quarrel  gave  him, 
made  unnecessary  for  the  moment  any  further 
demands  upon  the  baronage.  But  this  source 
of  revenue  shortly  proved  insufficient,  and 
John  turned  again  toward  scutage.  In  the 
two  financial  years  from  1209  to  1211,  he 
laid  three  scutages  which  aggregated  some 
seventy-three  shillings  on  the  knight's  fee. 
Then  for  the  space  of  two  years  John 
paused. 

But  it  was  only  a  pause.    On  June  1,  1212, 
inquest  of    he  caused  to  be  taken  the  Inquest  of  Service, 
1212    '       by  which  he  sought  to  bind  the  cord,  more 
tightly  upon  his  demesne  tenants  by  ascertain- 
ing in  the  now  familiar  manner  of  the  local 
jury,   how   great   was    the    return   which    he 
might  expect  from  the  lands  of  each  crown 
vassal.    It  is  easy  to  see  in  this  Inquest,  recall- 
ing in  its  nature  Domesday  Survey  and  the  In- 
quest of  1166,  the  intended  basis  for  another 
imposition  of  scutage.1    It  came  in  1213-14, 
when  John  made  the  wholly  unprecedented 
levy  of  three  marks  on  the  knight's  fee.    Ap- 
parently he  was  doing  all  he  could  to  hurry 
i  See  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  91-93. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        53 

the  crisis  which  should  lead  him  to  Runny- 
mede. 

There  were  two  features  of  John's  use  of 

Attendant 

scutage  aside  from  the  magnitude  and  fre-  abuses  of 
quency  of  his  levies  which  made  them  particu-  jg^es^f 
larly  onerous.  The  first  had  to  do  with  the  Scutage 
fines  which  he  exacted  from  such  of  the 
baronage  as  were  delinquent  in  paying  the 
imposts  of  Richard,  some  of  which  had  been 
in  arrears  since  1190.  Miss  Norgate  notes 
an  instance  which  illustrates  John's  habit, 
and  throws  light  upon  his  character.  Two 
men  of  Devon  in  1201  were  charged  with 
fines  by  reason  of  their  absence  from  the 
train  of  Richard  in  1193,  and  the  cause  of 
their  failure  was  this,  that  "  they  had  been  with 
Count  John."  At  the  moment  John  was  in 
rebellion  against  Richard,  but  now  that  he 
was  become  king  in  Richard's  place,  he  ex- 
acted fines  for  service  the  nonperformance  of 
which  he  himself  had  been  the  cause  of.1  The 
collection  of  fines  owing  to  Richard  bore  with 
special  heaviness  upon  the  northern  baronage 
and  these,  it  will  be  remembered,  were  the 
leaders  in  the  assault  upon  John  in  1215. 

1  Miss  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  122. 


54  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  other  great  abuse  which  John  intro- 
duced into  the  levying  of  scutage  was  his 
subversion  of  the  theory  that  the  payment  of 
it  by  the  vassal  wholly  acquitted  him  of  his 
obligation  to  the  king  for  that  occasion.  John 
endeavored  in  a  number  of  instances  to  make 
him  liable  for  personal  service  in  addition, 
and  for  fines  in  case  he  failed  to  be  present 
in  his  train.  In  1199  John  exacted  fines  from 
those  who  did  not  accompany  him  to  Nor- 
mandy; in  1201  he  accepted  money-payment 
as  a  substitute  for  service;  in  1205  he  fined  the 
tenants-in-chivalry  after  he  dismissed  them 
from  service  in  the  host.  In  these  years  scu- 
tages  were  laid  as  well.1 

Thus  did  John  make  over  scutage;  it  had 
become  a  heavy  impost  upon  the  lands  of 
demesne  tenants,  an  almost  annual  charge, 
and  a  tax  foreign  to  its  original  character  as 
a  commutation  for  personal  service.  A  rebel- 
lion culminating  in  the  exaction  from  John 
of  a  written  contract  between  him  and  the 
baronage,  detailing  their  mutual  relations  was 
the  natural  consequence. 

But  the  knights  were  by  no  means  the  only 

i  Miss  Norgate,  John  Lackland,  123-124. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        55 

body  of  Englishmen  whom  John  alienated 
by  his  frequent  levy  of  taxes.  The  clergy,  Antago- 
already  irritated  by  John's  quarrel  with  the  ™™ of  the 
Pope  and  his  seizures  of  ecclesiastical  property, 
were  ready  to  combat  the  king  in  any  further 
attempt  to  tax  them.  At  a  Great  Council  at 
London  on  the  8th  January,  1207,  the  king 
asked  "the  bishops  and  abbots  to  permit  the 
parsons  and  the  beneficed  clergy  to  give  to  the 
king  a  fixed  sum  from  their  revenues."  *  The 
prelates  did  not  consent,  and  John  brought 
the  matter  up  again  at  a  second  Great  Coun- 
cil which  he  convened  at  Oxford  on  the  9th 
February.  There  were  present  an  "infinite 
multitude  of  prelates  of  the  church  and  mag- 
nates of  the  realm,"  and  John  again  addressed 
the  ecclesiastics.  The  bishops  "unanimously 
answered  that  the  English  church  could  in 
no  wise  sustain  what  was  unheard  of  in  all 
the  ages  before."  The  king,  "taking  wise 
council,"  withdrew  his  demand,  but  he  did 
not  abandon  his  project.  "Afterward  he  General 

demand 

ordained  generally  throughout  the  kingdom  Ofa 
that  every  man  .  .  .  give   a   thirteenth   part    f    een 
to  the  king"  of  revenue  and  movables.    The  movables 

i  Ann.  Waverl.  a.  1207,  258.    In  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  273. 


56  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

demand  applied  to  all  men,  no  matter  from 
whom  they  held  their  lands.1  Against  the  im- 
position, the  earlier  analogues  -of  which  were 
the  Saladin  Tithe  and  Richard's  ransom,  "all 
murmured,  but  none  dared  to  contradict" 
the  king,  except  Geoffrey  of  York;  he  did  not 
consent,  but  openly  refused,  and  then  had 
to  fly  from  England  to  escape  John's  anger.2 
The  writ  for  the  assessment  of  the  thirteenth 
has  it  that  the  tax  was  provided  "by  the 
common  advice  and  assent  of  our  Council 
at  Oxford."  3  How  whole-souled  was  the 
assent  is  revealed  by  the  Chronicler;  "none 
dared  to  contradict." 

The  time  was  at  hand  when  men  would  not 
longer  endure  the  extortionate  exercise  of  an 
Normandy  unchallenged  royal  right.  There  were  a 
number  of  conditions  and  circumstances  aside 
from  the  burdensome  taxes  which  were  point- 
ing toward  Runnymede  and  Magna  Carta. 
By  1204  John  had  come  to  the  end  of  his  day 
in  France.  Normandy  was  lost.  The  effect 

1  In  1204  John  "took"  a  seventh  of  movables.    3  Rogeri 
de  Wendover,  173. 

2  3  Rogeri  de  Wendover,  210. 
»In  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  283. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        57 

upon  England  was  marked;  the  Norman 
baronage  was  obliged  to  choose  between  Eng- 
land and  the  Continent.  Hereafter  tyranny 
and  good-rule  of  the  English  kings  were 
alike  felt  solely  at  home,  and  the  barons 
cast  their  eyes  not  across  the  Channel,  but 
upon  their  lands  in  England.  The  English 
were  for  England  and  the  nation  was  born, 
the  first  conscious  act  of  which  was  to  be  the 
enactment  of  Magna  Carta. 

During  the  seven  years  from  1206-1213 
John  had  his  disgraceful  quarrel  with  the  pope, 
a  quarrel  which  ended  in  the  enfeoffment  of 
England  with  Innocent  as  feudal  overlord. 
The  matter  is  foreign  to  the  subject  in  hand, 
save  as  the  struggle,  especially  in  the  early 
development  of  it,  gave  John  a  pretext  for 
confiscating  the  ecclesiastical  holdings  and 
thereby  relieving  the  barons  of  a  scutage  for 
the  space  of  about  four  years. 

John,  conceiving  that  peace  with  the  Pope 
meant  full  mastery  of  affairs,  was  seized  with 
an  ambition  to  reconquer  Normandy.  To  this 
end  he  tried  to  induce  the  barons  to  follow 
him  into  Poictou.  They  refused,  first  on  the 
ground  that  John  was  not  yet  fully  absolved 


58  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

from  his  excommunication;  and  then,  after 
this  objection  was  removed  by  Stephen  Lang- 
ton  on  the  20th  July,  1213,  they  raised  the  old 
plea  that  they  were  not  bound  by  their  tenure 
to  follow  the  king  abroad.  John  determined 
to  enforce  their  attendance  upon  him  by  show 
of  arms. 

Council  at  Before  he  started  to  the  north,  where  the 
4thAueust'  seditious  movement  had  its  center,  an  as- 
1213  sembly  was  held  at  St.  Albans  on  the  4th 

August  by  Archbishop  Langton,  and  the  jus- 
ticiar  Geoffrey  Fitz-Peter.  Its  purpose  was 
to  assess  the  amount  due  to  the  ecclesiastics 
in  consequence  of  the  damage  sustained  by 
church  property  during  the  quarrel  with  the 
Pope.  But  its  great  importance  lay  in  the 
body  of  men  who  made  it  up.  It  is  in  so  far 
as  we  have  record,  the  first  occasion  that  repre- 
sentatives of  the  lesser  folk  were  summoned 
to  a  National  Council.1  Beside  the  bishops 
and  barons  who  attended,  there  were  present 
the  reeve  and  four  men  from  each  township  on 
the  royal  demesne.  The  Council  advanced 
somewhat  beyond  the  simple  purpose  for  which 
it  was  summoned;  the  justiciar  issued  an  edict 
i  1  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  566. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        59 

against  unjust  exactions,  to  be  observed  as  the 
sheriffs  valued  their  lives  and  limbs,  and  com- 
manded the  observance  of  the  good  laws  of 
Henry  I.1 

Later  in  the  year  to  Oxford,  the  non-noble  Non-noble 
representatives    were    again   called,    and    at 


the  initiation  of  John  himself.     John  hoped  to  Oxford, 

1213 

to  win  to  himself  by  this  act  of  respect  the 
support  of  the  smaller  landowners  against 
the  threatening  barons.  The  sheriffs  were  to 
send  up,  beside  the  knights  holding  from  the 
king,  four  discreet  men  from  each  county  "  to 
talk  with  us,"  as  the  writ  had  it,  "concerning 
the  business  of  our  realm."  z  This,  provided 
subsequent  events  had  kept  pace  with  it,  was 
an  immensely  long  step  forward;  indeed  the 
provisions  of  Magna  Carta  themselves  do  not 
advance  to  the  point  thus  falteringly  and  un- 
worthily reached  by  John.  It  provided  a 
precedent  for  the  representation  of  the  third 
estate  in  the  councils  of  the  nation;  and 
though  it  is  not  known  whether  or  not  any 
action  was  taken  relative  to  the  levying  of 
taxes,  or  even  whether  the  council  was  held 

i  3  Rogeri  de  Wendover,  262. 

»  The  writ  is  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  287. 


60  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

at  all,  nevertheless  the  fact  that  representa- 
tion for  the  moment  was  provided  for,  marks 
the  step  in  the  light  of  the  present,  as  of  great, 
almost  of  profound,  importance  in  the  consid- 
eration of  parliamentary  taxation. 

It  would  be  wandering  far  afield  to  trace 

the  final  struggles  of  John  with  his  infuriated 

barons.     It  is  sufficient  to  note  that  it  was 

an  unauthoritative  demand  of  taxation  which 

Events        pulled  the  structure  of  John's  misgovernment 

RunT* t0    crashin£  down  uPon  nis  head-      On  tne  26tn 
mede          May,  1214,  John  issued  writs  for  the  collection 

of  a  scutage  at  the  quite  unprecedented  rate 
of  three  marks  on  the  knight's  fee,  for  which 
there  was  not  a  shadow  of  consent.  The 
northern  barons,  the  same  who  had  refused 
personal  service,  now  refused  likewise  to  pay 
scutage.  In  the  face  of  precedent  to  the  con- 
trary, they  denied  their  liability  to  follow 
him,  not  merely  to  Poictou  but  to  any  district 
beyond  the  Channel,  or  to  pay  him  com- 
position for  not  doing  so.1  At  his  interview 
with  the  contumacious  barons  in  November  at 

1  2  Memoriale  Walteri  de  Coventria,  217.  "  Dicentes  se 
propter  terras  quas  in  Anglia  tenent  non  debere  regem  extra 
regnum  sequi  nee  ipsum  euntem  scutagio  juvare." 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        61 

Bury  St.  Edmunds,  he  reiterated  his  demand, 
but  they  remained  steadfast  in  their  refusal. 

From  that  time  until  King  and  Barons  met 
on  the  meadow  near  the  Thames  called  Run- 
nymede,  John's  sky  was  darkening.  He  did 
his  best  to  avoid  the  tempest,  but  with  no  suc- 
cess. He  attempted  to  break  the  union  of  his 
enemies  by  giving  the  church  and  the  people  of 
London  special  charters;  it  was  the  church, 
headed  by  Stephen  Langton,  which  stood 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the  barons  in  unend- 
ing hostility  to  John,  and  it  was  the  citizens 
of  London  whose  adherence  to  the  baronial 
cause  determined  the  final  contest  against 
the  king.  John  bought  the  services  of  merce- 
naries to  fight  his  battles  for  him,  but  when  he 
became  penniless,  they  fell  away.  With 
every  expedient  he  could  summon  in  his 
extremity,  he  tried  to  avoid  the  breaking  of 
the  storm.  But  the  whole  nation  was  against 
him.  The  men  of  the  North,  who  had  been 
steadfast  from  the  beginning  in  their  opposition 
to  John,  were  joined  by  barons  of  similar 
mettle  throughout  the  rest  of  England.  The 
citizens  of  London  when  they  joined  the  ranks 
of  John's  enemies  were  followed  by  the  earlier 


62  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

partisans  of  the  king,  save  only  those  few 
who  were  attached  by  interest  or  necessity. 
He  signed  the  Charter  the  15th  June,  1215, 
in  the  full  hope  that  with  the  passing  of  the 
tempest  he  might  forget  his  promises. 
Magna  The  Great  Charter,  in  form  granted  by 

isth  June     J°nn  as  a  voluntary  gift  to  the  nation,  was  in 
1215  reality  a  treaty  concluded  between  him  and 

his  barons.  That  its  provisions  relative  to 
taxation  are  important  has  already  been 
hinted  at;  as  a  matter  of  history,  the  recur- 
rence of  references  to  these  particular  sections 
of  the  Charter  proves  the  esteem  in  which 
Englishmen  of  later  generations  regarded 
this  early  book  of  their  Bible  of  Liberties. 
Whether  this  veneration,  displayed  by  the 
framers  of  subsequent  and  perhaps  equally 
important  instruments,  was  based  upon  the 
intrinsic  value  of  the  Charter  or  upon  nothing 
firmer  than  sentiment,  is  somewhat  of  a 
mooted  question.1  The  fact  that  it  was  held 
in  such  esteem  is  for  us  the  important  and 
sufficient  reason  for  considering  it  in  detail. 
It  is  essential  to  understand  upon  what  the 
later  champions  of  parliamentary  taxation 

1  See  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  144-150. 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION       63 

based  their  arguments,  even  though  those  ar- 
guments presumed  interpretations  of  Magna 
Carta  which  the  framers  of  the  Charter  would 
have  been  far  from  admitting. 

The  twelfth  chapter,1  taken  with  the  four-  Chapter  12 
teenth,2  serves  as  the  legal  basis  for  much  of 
the  eloquence  against  arbitrary  taxation  from 
the  time  of  John  to  the  acceptance  of  the 
United  States  Constitution.  It  has  been  taken 
to  admit  "the  right  of  the  nation  to  ordain 
taxation"3  and  even  as  the  surrender  of  the 
"royal  claim  to  arbitrary  taxation." 4  An 
analysis  of  the  contents  and  application  of 
the  twelfth  chapter  together  with  additional 
comment  on  the  fourteenth  may  throw  some 
light  on  the  substance  for  these  assertions.5 

1  Chapter  12.    No  scutage  or  aid  shall  be  imposed  in  our 
kingdom,  except  by  the  common  council  of  our  kingdom, 
except  for  the  ransoming  of  our  body,  for  the  making  of  our 
oldest  son  a  knight,  and  for  once  marrying  our  oldest  daughter, 
and  for  these  purposes  it  shall  be  only  a  reasonable  aid;  in 
the  same  way  it  shall  be  done  concerning  the  aids  of  the  city 
of  London.    Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents  of  Eng. 
Const.  Hist.  44.    Latin  text,  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  298. 

2  Below,  66. 

»  1  Stubbs,  Const .  Hist.  Eng.  573. 

4  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  101. 

*  See  McKechriie,  Magna  Carta,  274,  284,  291-301. 


64  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  impositions  which  are  specified  in  the 
chapter  are  "scutage"  and  "aid."  The  ar- 
bitrary levy  of  scutage  upon  the  lands  of  his 
tenants  was  the  chief  moving  cause  which 
brought  John  to  Runnymede,  and  this  chap- 
ter undertook  the  correction  of  the  abuse  of 
abuses.  The  aids  mentioned  are  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  incidents  of  feudal  tenure, 
reliefs,  marriages,  primer  seisins,  and  similar 
payments  which  are  dealt  with  elsewhere  in 
the  Charter  and  belong  to  the  peculiar  history 
of  feudalism.  The  twelfth  chapter  provides 
that  the  three  ordinary  aids  —  for  ransoming 
the  king,  for  knighting  his  eldest  son,  and 
for  the  marriage  of  his  eldest  daughter  — 
should  be  reasonable  in  amount.  These 
might  be  exacted  by  the  king  as  a  matter  of 
course,  without  the  common  council  of  the 
realm.  The  extraordinary  aids,  which  the 
Charter  places  in  the  same  category  with 
scutages,  include  all  other  arbitrary  feudal 
exactions  levied  to  meet  some  particular 
emergency  and  in  an  unusual  manner.  The 
Charter  places  both  these  extraordinary  aids 
and  the  obnoxious  scutages  beyond  the  pale 
of  royal  imposition ;  hereafter  they  are  leviable 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION        65 

only  "by  common  counsel"  of  the  kingdom. 
That  they  were  to  be  laid  by  the  body  known 
as  the  Common  Council  is  indicated  by  the 
provisions  of  Chapter  Fourteen. 

The  people  of  London  rightfully  expected  Provision 

to   benefit   by   the  granting   of   the    Charter.  **&****& 
J  London 

According  to  the  last  clause  of  the  Twelfth 
Chapter,  it  was  to  "be  done  concerning  the 
aids  of  the  city  of  London"  in  the  "same  way." 
The  provision  is  indefinite;  whether  the  "aids" 
were  also  to  include  in  their  category  the  more 
arbitrary  and  therefore  more  obnoxious  tal- 
lage 1  is  unknown.  The  aids  were  for  the  most 
part  free-will  offerings  of  the  city  itself,  whereas 
the  tallages  were  exacted  by  the  king  upon 
his  own  arbitrary  authority  as  one  having  the 
power  of  a  demesne  lord  over  London.  And 
whether  or  not  the  phrase  "in  the  same  way" 
means  that  aids  shall  be  levied  by  the  common 
counsel  of  the  realm,  or  merely  that  they  shall 
be  of  "  reasonable "  amount,  is  difficult  of  de- 
termination. If  indeed  the  former  idea  was  in 
the  minds  of  the  framers  of  the  Charter,  when 

1  "Tallage  was  a  tax  levied  at  a  feudal  lord's  arbitrary 
will  upon  more  or  less  servile  dependants,  who  had  neither 
power  nor  right  to  refuse."  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  228. 


they  came  to  the  section  providing  for  the 
composition  of  the  Common  Council,  they 
made  no  provision  for  the  attendance  of  any 
member  of  the  corporation  of  London,  or  even 
for  securing  their  consent.  At  all  events,  the 
king  continued  to  tallage  London  at  not  in- 
frequent intervals  and  almost  without  question 
until  1340,  when  Parliament  took  the  privilege 
away  from  Edward  III. 

Chapter  14  Before  we  advance  to  a  consideration  of  the 
true  importance  of  the  Twelfth  Chapter,  in 
order  to  have  a  complete  understanding  of  its 
position  in  the  line  of  progress  toward  parlia- 
mentary taxation,  we  are  obliged  to  look  at 
the  method  by  which  the  common  counsel 
of  the  kingdom  was  to  be  taken.  Chapter 
Fourteen l  lays  down  the  rule  according  to 
which  the  assembly  was  to  be  called  that 
should  hold  this  power  of  assenting  to  scu- 

1  Chapter  14.  "  And  for  holding  a  common  council  of  the 
kingdom  concerning  the  assessment  of  an  aid  otherwise 
than  in  the  three  cases  mentioned  above,  or  concerning 
the  assessment  of  a  scutage,  we  shall  cause  to  be  summoned 
the  archbishops,  bishops,  abbots,  earls,  and  greater  barons 
by  our  letters  individually;  and  besides  we  shall  cause  to  be 
summoned  generally,  by  our  sheriffs  and  bailiffs  all  those 
who  hold  from  us  in  chief,  for  a  certain  day,  that  is  at  the  end 
of  forty  days  at  least,  and  for  a  certain  place;  and  in  all  the 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION  67 

tages  and  aids.  The  method  of  summons 
was  simple;  it  involved  the  issuance  of  writs, 
individually  to  the  archbishops,  bishops,  ab- 
bots, earls,  and  the  greater  barons,  and 
collectively  to  the  lesser  barons  through  the 
agency  of  the  royal  sheriffs  and  bailiffs.  The 
writs  gave  at  least  forty  days'  notice  as  to 
the  place  and  time  of  meeting,  and  specified 
the  business  which  furnished  the  occasion  for 
the  Council.  As  for  its  composition,  the  an- 
swer is  very  simple;  it  was  a  gathering  of 
tenants-in-chief  of  the  king,  of  crown  vassals. 
The  line  between  the  greater  and  the  lesser 
barons  was  ill-defined.  Roughly,  however, 
it  divided  the  baronage  into  classes,  one  of 
which  included  the  baron  whose  holdings 
embraced  the  major  part  of  a  county,  and  the 
other  the  tenant  of  the  king  whose  dwelling 
was  a  cottage  set  in  his  dozen  acres.  It  is 
probable  that  the  lesser  barons  played  no 

letters  of  that  summons,  we  will  express  the  cause  of  the 
summons,  and  when  the  summons  has  thus  been  given  the 
business  shall  proceed  on  the  appointed  day,  on  the  advice 
of  those  who  shall  be  present,  even  if  not  all  of  those  who 
were  summoned  have  come."  Adams  and  Stephens,  Select 
Documents,  44.  The  Latin  text  is  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters, 
299. 


68  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

considerable  part  in  the  assembly,  and  that 
their  attendance    or    non-attendance   was  of 
little  consequence.     The  light  of  the  lesser 
folk  was  as  yet  hid  under  the  bushel. 
The  It  is  a  conclusion  easily  drawn  from  the 

towanT  text  of  the  two  chapters  that  this  was  a  body 
Pariia-  of  feudatories  called  together  for  the  purpose 
taxation  °f  making  feudal  payments.  The  members  of 
the  Commune  Concilium  were  the  vassals  of 
the  crown  and,  save  in  rare  instances,  none 
other;  the  taxation  to  which  they  were  to  give 
their  consent  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
Charter,  included  no  carucage  or  other  general 
tax,  but  only  the  scutages  and  aids  which 
feudal  tenants  of  the  king  by  military  service 
were  expected  to  pay  him  as  overlord.  Fur- 
thermore, the  idea  of  representation  in  the 
strictly  technical  sense  into  which  present  usage 
has  frozen  the  word,  was  quite  wanting.  It  is 
true  that  a  consent  by  the  barons  gathered  in 
the  Council  to  an  imposition  levied  in  accord- 
ance with  the  notice  stated  in  the  summons, 
was  binding  upon  the  barons  who  did  not 
attend,  but  this  was  on  the  principle  that 
absence  gave  consent,  not  that  the  consent 
of  the  majority  was  binding  upon  a  dissen- 


FEUDAL  AND  ROYAL  TAXATION  69 

tient  minority.  The  instance  is  quoted  of 
the  Bishop  of  Winchester  who  in  Henry  Ill's 
time  was  relieved  of  his  assessment  because 
he  had  opposed  the  levy  in  the  Council. 
John  had  introduced  definite  representation 
in  his  summons  to  the  Oxford  Council  in 
1213,  by  directing  the  sheriffs  to  send  up 
"four  discreet  knights"  from  their  counties 
to  treat  with  him  "concerning  the  business 
of  his  realm."  In  respect  of  this,  looking  at 
it  in  the  light  of  later  progress,  the  Great 
Charter  is  positively  retrogressive. 

The  conclusion  is  thus  forced  upon  us  that 
save  in  the  two  cases  of  scutages  and  extraor- 
dinary aids,  with  possibly  the  addition  of  a 
third  in  the  shape  of  tallaging  the  city  of 
London,  supreme  authority  over  general  tax- 
ation remained  in  the  hands  of  the  king. 
The  Charter  provides  solely  for  the  financial 
incidents  of  the  feudal  relation,  and  that  in 
the  somewhat  narrower  aspect  of  tenure  by 
chivalry.  The  only  true  taxes,  carucage  and 
John's  levy  on  movables  known  as  the  thir- 
teenth, were  not  referred  to.  It  is  an  anticipa- 
tion of  later  history  to  read  into  the  provisions 
of  Magna  Carta  either  a  definite  inaugura- 


70  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

tion  of  national  consent  to  taxation  or  of  the 
representative  principle. 

But  the  wedge  was  driven  in.  Notwith- 
standing the  omission  of  both  the  Twelfth 
and  the  Fourteenth  Chapters  in  subsequent 
renewals  of  the  Charter,  the  king  lived  up  to 
the  principles  therein  set  down;  and  notwith- 
standing the  absence  in  Magna  Carta  of  pro- 
vision for  parliamentary  taxation  in  fact,  it 
was  there  in  embryo.  The  nation,  headed  by 
the  barons,  had  set  itself  to  the  correction  of 
abuses,  and  it  succeeded  in  attaining  its  im- 
mediate end.  Greater  purposes  were  to  fol- 
low, born  perhaps  of  the  inspiration  in  the 
Charter,  and  with  the  purposes  were  to  come 
also  the  means  of  attaining  them.  The  nation, 
having  once  taken  a  sip  of  the  cup  of  control 
over  taxation,  would  not  be  content  until  at 
last  it  had  drunk  deep  from  the  well  itself. 


Ill 


THE   CUSTOM   OF   PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS 
1215-1272 

MAGNA  CARTA  brought  to  an  end  the  period 
of  absolutism  and  prepared  the  way  for  the 
control  by  Parliament  of  the  taxing  power. 
The  barons,  standing  for  the  moment  as  the 
champions  of  the  nation,  had  wrung  from 
John  the  first  concession.  It  really  was  not 
as  great  a  concession,  in  so  far  as  the  power 
to  tax  was  concerned,  as  eager  advocates  of 
popular  rights  have  maintained.  But  it  was 
the  protest  by  the  most  influential  body  in 
the  kingdom  and  in  effect  by  the  nation  itself 
against  unrestrained  use  of  power  by  a  royal 
tyrant. 

The  long  reign  of  Henry  III,  stormy  and  The  reign 
contradictory  to  itself,  accomplished  one  clear  ^ 
step  forward.     From  one  cause  or  another  1216-1272 
it  became  customary  for  the  National  Council, 
which  in  this  reign  first  attained  to  the  title 
of  Parliament,  to  grant  money  to  the  king. 


72  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Another  step,  of  vast  importance  in  the  later 
history  of  parliamentary  taxation,  but  in 
Henry's  time  probably  not  of  intimate  con- 
nection with  it,  was  the  summons  of  the  lesser 
tenants  and  subsequently  of  the  townsmen 
into  the  councils  of  Parliament.  There  is  no 
sure  record  that  in  Henry  Ill's  reign  a  Parlia- 
ment so  constituted  voted  taxes,  yet  it  is  ap- 
parent that  this  differentiation  in  the  national 
legislative  body  was  the  preliminary  of  the 
vesting  of  the  taxing  power  in  the  House  of 
Commons. 

John  died  in  the  midst  of  his  reverses  the 
19th  October,  1216.  The  major  part  of  his 
vassals  were  in  the  field  against  him,  and 
worse  than  all,  Louis,  the  heir  to  France,  with 
French  soldiers  at  his  back,  was  in  England 
at  the  bidding  of  the  English  baronage.  Nine 
days  after  John's  death,  his  son  Henry,  a 
nine-year-old  lad,  was  crowned  King  of  Eng- 
land with  small  ceremony.  After  a  lapse  of 
two  weeks,  on  the  llth  November,  a  body  of 
barons  gathered  at  Bristol.  There  were  four 
or  five  earls,  including  Pembroke,  Chester, 
and  Derby ;  eleven  bishops,  Hubert  de  Burgh, 
one  or  two  other  ministers,  and  some  of  the 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  73 

military  leaders.  Only  one  of  the  executors 
of  the  Charter  figured  at  the  meeting  and  this 
was  William  of  Aumale.  For  the  most  part 
they  were  of  the  party  least  disaffected  by 
John;  the  rabid  opponents  of  the  old  King 
were  in  the  body  of  supporters  around  Louis 
of  France.  The  Council  proceeded  to  appoint 
William  Marshal,  Earl  of  Pembroke  Rector 
regis  et  regni,  being  unwilling  to  elect  a  rela- 
tive of  the  young  King  to  this  responsible 
position.  The  next  day  they  reissued  the  Reissue  of 
Charter  by  common  consent  in  the  King's 


name,  with  the  important  omission  of  Chapters  omissions 
Twelve  and  Fourteen. 

The  reason  for  leaving  out  restrictions  upon 
the  royal  power  so  vital  to  the  feudatories  is 
readily  apparent.  The  Council  was  distinctly 
royalist;  as  such,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  John,  the  great  offender,  was  dead, 
it  did  not  favor  restricting  the  royal  power. 
Further,  the  barons  in  effect  were  themselves 
the  king,  and  being  so,  there  was  no  par- 
ticular object  in  limiting  their  own  power 
over  themselves.  That  the  Fourteenth  Chap- 
ter would  be  observed,  whether  it  were  speci- 
fied or  not,  dealing  as  it  did  with  the  sum- 


74  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

moning  of  the  Council,  went  as  a  matter  of 
course.1 

One  of  the  objects  in  the  minds  of  the  Coun- 
cil in  reissuing  the  Charter  was  to  win  adher- 
ents from  the  standard  of  Louis.  In  this  they 
were  partly  successful ;  but  it  took  the  decisive 
defeat  delivered  to  the  French  prince  at  the 
Fair  of  Lincoln  in  May  of  the  following  year, 
coupled  with  the  loss  of  his  reinforcing  fleet 
in  August,  to  bring  about  peace.  A  treaty 
between  Pembroke  and  Louis  followed  in 
September,  and  secured  to  the  belligerent 
barons  the  liberties  of  the  realm  and  the 
restoration  of  their  lands.  General  pacifica- 
tion between  the  parties  came  the  6th  No- 
Second  vember  following,  with  the  second  reissuance 
of  the  °f  ^ne  Charter,  this  time  in  the  form  which 
charter  later  generations  of  kings  should  be  called 
upon  to  confirm. 

There  was  introduced  into  this  draft  of 
the  Charter  a  change  which  materially  affects 
taxation.  Though  Chapters  Twelve  and  Four- 

1  Cap.  42  of  this  reissue  of  the  Charter  states  the  promise 
of  the  king  to  return  to  the  matter  of  the  levying  of  scutages 
and  aids,  when  the  occasion  should  be  more  propitious. 
McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  168-169. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  75 

teen  of  John's  issue  are  ignored,  there  is 
in  the  Forty-Fourth  Chapter  a  distinct  refer- 
ence to  the  levying  of  scutage.1  "Scutage," 
it  says  "shall  be  taken  as  it  was  wont  to  be 
taken  in  the  time  of  King  Henry  our  uncle." 
In  other  words  the  consent  of  the  barons  was 
to  be  no  longer  a  prerequisite  to  the  levying 
of  a  scutage.  The  only  restriction  placed  by 
written  law  upon  the  king  was  that  he  should 
take  scutages  according  to  the  custom  of 
Henry  II,  —  that  is,  that  they  should  not 
exceed  in  amount  twenty  shillings  on  the  its 
knight's  fee.  The  barons  who  remade  the  om 
Charter  thus  abandoned  the  semblance  of 
taxation  by  the  baronage  which  was  provided 
for  under  the  terms  of  John's  enactment.  It 
was  only  a  shadow  which  they  left  behind, 
but  nevertheless  it  was  the  shadow  from  which 
something  substantial  could  emerge,  the  germ 
from  which  a  creature  of  immense  vigor 
might  develop.  The  omission,  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say,  is  an  exceedingly  apt  vindica- 
tion of  the  contention  that  at  the  time  the 

1  Cap.  44.  Scutagium  decetero  capiatur  sicut  capi  con- 
suevit  tempore,  regis  Henrici  avi  nostri.  McKechnie,  Magna 
Carta,  585,  where  also  is  the  text  of  the  entire  reissue. 


76  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Charter  of  John  was  enacted,  the  framers  of 
the  instrument  intended  to  create  no  barriers 
against  the  royal  power  of  levying  general 
taxation;  if  they  had  had  in  mind  so  funda- 
mental a  change,  it  is  unlikely  that  in  1217, 
even  though  the  radical  faction  was  still  feel- 
ing the  sting  of  defeat,  these  provisions  should 
have  been  allowed  to  lapse.1  It  is  profoundly 
indicative  both  of  the  modest  ambition  of  the 
barons  in  1215  and  the  obscurity  of  their  po- 
litical vision  in  1217. 

But  the  future  was  fairer  than  the  condi- 
tions presaged.    As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  king 
observed    in    the    majority    of   instances    the 
conditions  imposed  by  the  Charter  of  John. 
Text  of        Scutages   of   even    less    amount    than    those 
i2is  is        "taken   in   the   time  of  King  Henry"   were 

adhered  J 

to  in  taken  with  the  consent  of  the  National  Coun- 

cil, the  sessions  of  which  "continued  as  from 
time  immemorial,"  though  the  provisions 
for  its  summons  had  been  laid  aside.  That 
the  barons  were  intending  to  retain  control 
as  under  the  Charter  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  a  scutage  under  the  date  24th  January, 
1218,  "was  assessed  by  the  common  council 

i  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  173-174. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  77 

of  our  realm."  1  Bishop  Stubbs  believes  that 
this  scutage  was  granted  by  the  identical 
Council  which  reissued  the  Charter  the  previ- 
ous November.2  Futhermore,  there  is  a  note 
of  a  carucage  under  the  date  9th  January, 
1218,  which  "was  assessed  by  the  council  of 
our  realm,"  a  remark  which  suggests  that  not 
only  did  this  Council  determine  to  grant 
feudal  payments  of  scutage,  but  assumed  as 
well  the  power  of  registering  its  assent  to  a 
general  land  tax. 

If  full   credence   can   be   attached   to   the 

1 1  Rotidi  Litterarum  Clausarum,  349. 

2  2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  30,  note  1.  He  bases  his 
belief  on  the  fact  that  "the  orders  for  the  collecting  this  scu- 
tage were  issued  Feb.  22,  the  same  day  on  which  the  writs  for 
proclaiming  the  charters  are  dated,"  and  cites  1  Rot.  Glaus. 
377.  In  the  same  note  he  records  the  following  instances  of 
taxation: 

"June  7,  1217,  the  king  mentions  a  carucage,  hidage  and 
aid,  'quod  de  prsecepto  nostro  assisum  est.'  1  Rot.  Glaus. 
310." 

"Jan.  9,  1218,  Henry  mentions  a  carucage  and  hidage, 
'quod  assisum  fuit  per  consilium  regni  nostri.'  1  Rot.  Glaus. 
348. 

"Jan.  17,  Henry  mentions  a  scutage  of  two  marks  on  the 
fee,  'quod  exegimus,'  and 

"Jan.  24,  'scutagium  de  omnibus  feodis  militum  quae  de 
nobis  tenent  in  capite,  quod  ultima  assisum  fuit  per  commune 
consilium  regni  nostri.'  1  Rot.  Glaus.  349. 


78 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


Carucage 
"assessed* 
by  the 
Council, 
1218 


record  here  given  that  a  tax  was  "assessed" 
by  the  Council,  and  if  the  act  of  assessment 
can  be  taken  as  indicating,  so  to  speak,  full- 
fledged  consent  on  the  part  of  the  barons, 
then  we  have  in  this  record  of  the  Close  Rolls 
one  of  the  very  earliest  instances  of  general 
taxation  by  and  through  the  English  National 
Council.  That  no  greater  attention  was  given 
to  the  event  than  the  scant  sentence  in  the 
Rolls,  is  perhaps  not  to  be  wondered  at, 
considering  the  youth  of  the  king  and  the 
coherent  Council. 

With  such  a  Council,  bent  apparently  upon 
putting  in  practice  greater  privileges  than  it 
had  given  itself  in  theory,  the  boy  Henry  be- 
gan his  long  reign.  The  good  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke died  in  1219  and  Henry  was  left  to  the 
conflicting  counsels  of  Hubert  de  Burgh  and 
Peter  des  Roches,  the  Bishop  of  Winchester. 
Growing  restive  under  them  at  last,  in  1223 
he  secured  a  declaration  from  the  Pope  that 
he  was  of  age,  he  being  then  sixteen,  and 
swore  to  observe  the  Charters.  But  neither 
of  his  reissues  of  the  Charter  could  be  called, 
strictly  speaking,  voluntary;  and  liberties  ex- 
torted, in  the  sinister  words  of  the  sycophant 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  79 

William  Briwere,  "ought  not  by  right  to  be 
observed."  l  The  uneasiness  arising  out  of 
this  uncertain  state  of  the  Charters,  led  to 
one  of  the  first  instances  of  a  grant  of  money 
on  condition  that  grievances  be  redressed,  a 
manner  of  grant  which  served  the  Commons 
many  a  turn  in  their  subsequent  struggles  with 
royal  prerogative. 

In  1224  war  was  on  with  Philip  II  for  the 
possession  of  Poictou.  The  taxation  which 
had  not  been  severe  up  to  this  time,  was 
insufficient  for  the  prosecution  of  a  war  with 
France.2  The  justiciar  at  the  Christmas 

1  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  181,  quotes  Matthew  Paris, 
3  Chron,  Maj.  76,  "Libertates  quas  petitis  quia  violenter 
extortse  fuerunt,  non  debent  de  jure  observari." 

2  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  37-38,  notes  the  following 
taxes: 

1.  Cam  cage  of  2  shillings,  taken  at  the  coronation  of  1220. 
Ann.  Waverely,  quoted  in  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  321,  gives 
no  hint  of  the  authority  for  the  levy  save  that  the  king  *'ac- 
cepit"   it.    The  writ   (Sel.  Chart.  351)   states  that  it  was 
granted  by  the  Council. 

2.  Scutage  of   10  shillings  after  the  capture  of  Biham, 
granted  by  the  Council,  1221.    1  Rot.  Glaus.  458. 

3.  Scutage  of  2  marks  for  Welsh  War,  1223. 

4.  Scutage  of  2  marks  for  siege  of  Bedford. 

5.  Contribution  to  crusade  1223,  assented  to  by  Council. 
1  Rot.  Claus.  516. 


80  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Council  1224  brought  forward  a  demand  for 

a   fifteenth   of   all   movables.1      The   barons, 

acting    beyond    the    power    which    even    the 

Charter  of  John  had  given  them,  refused  to 

consent,   unless   Henry   should   "of   his   own 

natural  and  good  will"  renew  Magna  Carta. 

Conditional  He  yielded,  and   reissued    both   the   Charter 

fifteenth *    °^  Liberties  and  the  Charter  of  the  Forests 

of  mova-     m  practically  the  same  form  as  the  issue  of 

bles,  1224  J 

1217.  That  the  reissue  partook  of  the  nature 
of  a  contract  between  the  barons  and  the 
king  is  evinced  in  the  concluding  portion  of 
the  Charter  itself.2  There  it  is  openly 
stated  that  "the  archbishops,  bishops,  ab- 
bots, priors,  earls,  barons,  knights,  freehold- 
ers, and  all  persons  of  the  realm,  give  the 
fifteenth  part  of  all  movables  to  the  king," 
"for  this  concession  and  granting  of  lib- 
erties." 

Here  is  an  unequivocal  instance  of  a  tax 

1  2  Matt.  Par.,  Hist.  Angl.  268-269. 

2  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  354.    "Pro  hac  autem  concessione 
et  donatione  libertatum  istarum  et  aliarum  libertatum  conten- 
tamm  in  carta  nostra  de  libertatibus  forestse,  archiepiscopi, 
episcopi,  abbates,  priores,  comites,   barones,  milites,  libere 
tenentes  et  omnes  de  regno  nostro,  dederunt  nobis  quintam 
decimam  partem  omnium  mobilium  suorum." 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  81 

on  movables,  applying  to  every  person  in 
the  kingdom  from  the  archbishops  and  great 
nobles  down,  granted  explicitly  by  the  Council 
in  return  for  Henry's  specific  promise  to 
adhere  to  the  Charter.  It  was  the  most 
natural  thing  in  the  world,  that  the  barons 
should  demand  a  favor  in  return  for  granting 
one.  They  had  Henry  in  a  box  and  his 
acquiescence  is  none  the  less  natural.  Yet 
the  action  is  of  great  importance  in  view  of 
later  developments.  Time  and  time  again 
the  situation  was  to  be  repeated,  and  out  of 
repetition  was  to  come  usage  which  would  be 
frozen  into  law.  It  is  of  vast  interest,  there- 
fore, to  note  the  appearance  so  early  of  the 
conditional  grant. 

The  Council  continued  to  exercise  the  right 
not  merely  of  making  grants  of  money  in 
consideration  of  a  redress  of  grievances,  but  other 

also  of  refusing  to  make  a  grant  at  all,  when-  con  AtlonJ 

grants  and 

ever  such  a  stand  suited  their  convenience,  instances 
In  1232  the  Earl  of  Chester,  being  spokes- 
man for  the  barons,  objected  to  a  request  for 
money  with  which  to  carry  on  the  French 
war,  on  the  plea  that  they  had  served  in  per- 
son; the  clergy  sought  postponement,  raising 


82  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  significant  plea  of  an  incomplete  assembly 
of  prelates.1 

Again,  five  years  later,  Henry  being  in 
dire  distress  for  money  because  of  unwise 
expenditure  and  the  lightness  of  recent  taxa- 
tion,2 summoned  an  extraordinary  council 
of  barons  and  prelates  "to  arrange  the  royal 
business"  and  matters  concerning  the  whole 
kingdom.  William  de  Ralegh,  a  clerk  of  the 
king,  introduced  the  royal  needs,  saying  that 
"the  king  humbly  demands  assistance  of 
you  in  money."  Sensing  beforehand  an  atti- 
tude of  antagonism,  he  made  this  remarkable 
concession,  that  "the  money  which  may  be 
raised  by  your  good  will  shall  be  kept  to  be 
expended  for  the  necessary  uses  of  the  king- 

1 1  Matt.  Par.  339. 

2  Instances  of  recent  taxation  are: 

1.  Scutages  1229,  1230,  1231,  each  for  military  expeditions. 
2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  42,  note  3. 

2.  A  tenth  of  all  property  1229.    Refused  by  the  barons  and 
paid  by  the  clergy.    2  Matt.  Par.  Hist.  Angl.  316. 

3.  Tallages   1227,  1230,   1234.    1   Dowell,    Taxation  and 
Taxes,  52. 

4.  A  fortieth  of  movables,  14  Sept.,  1232,  24,712  marks 
granted  by  the  Council.     2  Matt.   Par.  Hist.  Angl.  345. 

5.  Two  marks  on  the  knight's  fee  on  occasion  of  the  mar- 
riage of  the  king's  sister,  1235,  granted  by  the  Commune 
Concilium.    1  Madox,  Hist.  Ex.  593. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  83 

dom,  at  the  discretion  of  any  of  you  elected  for 

the  purpose."    But  the  barons  failed  to  perceive 

the  greatness   of   the  opportunity  which  lay 

open  to  them.     Had  they  but  availed  them-  Offer  of  a 

selves  of  it,  they  would  have  gone  far  toward 


the  establishment  of  the  power  of  the  legisla-  sion>  1237» 

i  i«  i'ii  rejected 

ture  over  the  public  purse,  and  might  have 

accomplished  in  a  moment,  had  they  been 
able  to  maintain  their  control,  what  many 
succeeding  parliaments  were  to  strive  for  in 
vain.  But  apparently  the  baronage  was  not 
gifted  with  political  perception;  they  saw  only 
a  demand  for  money  and  "began  to  murmur." 
They  complained  that  the  foreign  advisers  of 
the  king  had  been  wasting  the  royal  revenue 
and  that  there  was  no  great  enterprise  afoot 
which  required  a  full  treasury.  Then  the 
king  proceeded  to  conciliate  them  with  what 
in  comparison  with  the  proposed  concession  of 
the  disbursing  commission,  was  a  mess  of 
pottage;  he  ordered  the  renewal  of  the  sen- 
tence of  excommunication  of  all  violators  of 
the  Charter,  promised  to  abide  by  it  him- 
self, and  received  three  additional  Councillors 
named  by  the  Council.1  Thereupon  a  grant 

i  2  Matt.  Par.  Hist.  AngL  393-394. 


84  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

of  the  thirtieth  part  of  all  the  movable  prop- 
erty in  the  kingdom  was  made  by  the  lords 
"for  themselves  and  their  villans."  l  In  this 
phrase  of  the  writ  is  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
supposition  that  the  lords  of  the  Council 
regarded  themselves  as  authoritative  spokes- 
men for  their  vassals.  The  money  was  to 
be  collected  in  accordance  with  the  prescrip- 
tion of  the  Council;  four  knights  and  a  clerk 
(appointed  apparently  by  the  king),  were  to 
receive  the  assessment  of  each  township 
from  the  reeve  and  four  men,  elected  for  the 
purpose.  Here  was  evidence  of  progress; 
the  step  was  not  very  long  from  the  assess- 
ment and  collection  of  a  tax  to  the  granting  of 
it  by  the  people  themselves.  The  king  prof- 
ited to  the  amount  of  some  .£22,600. 

After  a  lapse  of  five  years,  Henry  found 
himself,  as  he  supposed,  on  the  brink  of  a  war 
with  France;  he  therefore  sent  out  orders  for 
a  session  of  the  Council.  Apprehending  that 
the  summons  presaged  a  demand  for  money, 
the  baronage,  "because  they  knew  that  the 
king  had  so  often  harassed  them  in  this  way 
on  false  pretences,  .  .  .  they  made  oath  to- 

i  The  writ  is  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  366. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  85 

gether  that  at  this  council  no  one  should  on 
any  account  consent  to  any  extortion  of  money 
to  be  attempted  by  the  king."  l  When  the 
Council  met,  therefore,  Henry  was  greeted 
with  a  refusal,  on  the  grounds  that  he  had 
engaged  in  the  war  without  asking  their 
advice,  and  that  "he  had  so  often  extorted  Refusal  of 
large  sums  of  money  from  them,  which  was 
expended  with  no  advantage;  they  therefore 
now  opposed  him  to  his  face,  and  refused 
once  more  to  be  despoiled  of  their  money  to 
no  purpose."  Harking  back  to  the  conditions 
of  the  grant  of  1237,  and  laboring,  apparently, 
under  the  misconception  that  the  king  had 
promised  that  the  money  be  spent  under  the 
direction  of  a  disbursing  commission,  they 
complained  because  they  did  "not  know  and 
have  not  heard  that  any  of  the  aforesaid 
money  has  been  expended  at  the  discretion 
or  by  the  advice  of  any  one  of  the  said  four 
nobles." 

Thus  did  they  refuse.  But  Henry  was 
neither  to  be  robbed  of  his  hoped-for  supply 
nor  yet  induced  to  give  further  concessions. 
He  therefore  turned  to  strategy.  Summoning 

1 1  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans,  by  J.  A.  Giles,  397-404. 


86  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  barons  and  prelates  to  him  one  by  one, 
he  "begged  pecuniary  aid  from  them,  saying, 
'See  what  such  an  abbot  has  given  to  aid  me, 
and  what  another  has  given  me.' '  By  such 
means  he  managed  to  wring  from  the  barons 
individually  what  he  had  been  unable  to 
induce  them  to  give  in  the  Council.  With 
the  money  thus  obtained  Henry  set  out  on  a 
campaign  doomed  to  ignominious  failure. 
Before  he  came  back  to  England  he  used  this 
expedition  as  the  pretext  for  a  scutage  of 
twenty  shillings  on  the  fee.1 

Similar  success  did  not  meet  Henry,  when, 
two  years  later,  he  attempted  to  raise  funds 
with  which  to  prosecute  a  Scotch  war.  In 
the  fall 2  of  1244  Henry  summoned  his  Coun- 
cil to  London;  he  laid  before  it  the  story  of 
his  recent  journey  to  Gascony  and  used  the 
debts  which  he  had  incurred  as  the  pretext 
for  a  grant.8  He  addressed  the  baronage  in 
person  in  the  expectation  that  they  would  not 
refuse  a  face  to  face  appeal;  the  nobles,  how- 

1  2  Matt.  Par.  Hist.  Angl.  466. 

2  Matthew  Paris  is  not  clear  as  to  the  time  of  year.    2  Stubbs, 
Const.  Hist.  Eng.  62,  note  3,  fixes  the  date  as  between  9th 
Sept.  and  18th  Nov. 

3  2  Matt.  Par.  Chran.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  7-9. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  87 

ever,  withdrew  to  consult  amongst  themselves, 
with  the  result  that  a  committee  of  twelve,  rep- 
resenting the  three  bodies  of  prelates,  earls,  Great 
and  barons,  was  chosen  to  draw  up  an  answer 


to   the   king.     Simon  de   Montfort,  Earl  of  <>ut  f<* 

.  .  supervised 

.Leicester,  whose  great  opportunity  was  not  yet  expendi- 
come,  served  as  one  of  the  four  earls;  and  ture 
Richard  de  Montfichet,  one  of  the  few  execu- 
tors of  Magna  Carta  who  still  survived,  acted 
amongst  the  delegation  from  the  baronage. 
The  reply  was  consistent  with  the  works  of  both. 
The  committee  complained  of  the  nonobserv- 
ance  of  the  Charter,  of  the  rash  and  fruit- 
less expenditure  of  money,  and  demanded  the 
appointment  of  a  justiciar  and  a  chancellor  "  by 
whom  the  kingdom  might  be  consolidated." 

The  king,  however,  was  unwilling  to  act 
under  compulsion  ;  he  refused  the  petition  and 
ordered  the  barons  to  reassemble  three  weeks 
after  the  Purification  of  the  Virgin  in  1245. 
Thereupon  the  nobles  declared  their  willing- 
ness to  grant  him  money,  provided  that  in  the 
meantime  the  king  should  choose  proper  coun- 
sellors and  institute  reforms.  The  proviso 
which  was  of  greatest  importance,  however, 
was  this,  "that  whatever  money  was  granted 


88  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

to  him  should  be  expended  by  the  twelve  .  .  . 
nobles  for  the  king's  benefit."  These  condi- 
tions were  greatly  to  Henry's  distaste;  he  set 
himself  to  wring  money  from  the  prelates,  but 
with  no  success.  Then  the  Council  "broke 
up,  much  to  the  king's  discontent." 
A  scheme  The  historian  proceeds  to  give  a  scheme  of 
reform  which  may  possibly  be  the  result  of  the 
deliberations  of  the  magnates,  presented  by 
them  to  Henry  for  his  consent.1  It  provides 
for  the  election  by  the  Council  of  four  of  its 
"most  discreet"  members  to  serve  as  counsel- 
lors of  the  king.  "By  their  inspection,"  the 
account  states  further,  "and  on  their  evidence 
the  king's  treasury  shall  be  managed,  and  the 
money  granted  to  him  by  the  community  in 
general  shall  be  expended  for  the  benefit  of 
the  king  and  kingdom  according  as  they  shall 
see  to  be  most  expedient  and  advantageous." 
The  four  counsellors  were  to  have  numerous 
other  powers  and  duties,  many  of  which  are 
suggestive  of  the  scheme  subsequently  put  into 
practice  by  Simon  de  Montfort. 

Of  itself  this  scheme  of  reform  is  relatively 
unimportant.    But  taken  with  the  demand  of 

i  2  Matt.  Par.  Chr&n.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  11-12. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  89 

the  magnates  that  twelve  of  their  number  su- 
pervise the  expenditure  of  such  money  as  they 
should  grant  to  the  king,  it  assumes  some  sig- 
nificance. It  points  toward  the  growing  tend- 
ency on  the  part  of  the  barons  to  assume  control, 
not  only  of  the  granting  of  taxes,  but  of  the  ex- 
penditure of  the  money  so  raised  as  well.  For 
some  centuries  thereafter  the  question  as  to 
whether  that  control  should  lie  with  the  king  or 
subjects  was  to  be  a  prime  subject  of  contention. 
It  would  be  a  fruitless  and  uninteresting 
task  to  illustrate  further  the  control  over  mat- 
ters of  taxation  exercised  by  the  Council  dur- 
ing this  part  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III.  The 
instances  in  which  the  royal  requests  were 
refused,  and  the  occasions  when  the  king 
attempted  to  evade  the  refusal  by  private  so- 
licitation were  not  infrequent.1  A  single  cita- 
tion may  be  excused,  however,  because  of  the 
element  of  sinister  humor  which  pervades  it. 

1  The  following  taxes  and  refusals  are  variously  cited: 

1245.  Grant  of  an  aid  of  20  shillings  "ad  filiam  maritan- 
dam."  1  Madox,  Hist.  Ex.  594. 

1246.  Scutage  of  three  marks  on  the  fee.    2  Stubbs,  Const. 
Hist.  Eng.  65,  note  5,  citing  Pipe  Roll  of  1246. 

1248.  Noted  above. 

1249.  Appointment  of  justiciar,  chancellor,  and  treasurer 


90  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Henry  asked  the  Council  for  money  on  the 
9th  February,  1248,  and  was  greeted  with  a 
demand  for  a  justiciar,  chancellor,  and  treas- 
urer to  be  appointed  by  the  Council  itself. 
This  appeared  distasteful  to  Henry,  who  was 
learning  the  trick  of  independence.  After  a 
delay  of  some  five  months  he  refused  compli- 
ance; whereat  he  discovered  that  no  grant 
was  forthcoming  from  the  Council.1  There- 
upon Henry  announced  to  his  good  citizens  of 
London  that  he  would  pass  the  Christmastide 
with  them,  in  order  that  he  might  freely  accept 
of  their  New  Year's  presents.2 

demanded.  Failure.  2  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles, 
308-309. 

1252.  The  Pope  held  Henry  to  his  promise  of  a  Crusade 
made  in  1250,  and  authorized  him  to  exact  a  tenth  of  the 
revenues  of  the  clergy  for  three  years.     The  clergy  delayed. 
Henry  turned  to  the  barons  and  asked  for  a  scutage;  the  barons 
answered  that  their  reply  would  depend  upon  the  prelates. 
2  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  518-527. 

1253.  Debate  on  the  above.     At  last  Henry  obtained  his 
tenth  from  the  clergy  and  an  aid  of  3  marks  from  the  tenants- 
in-chief  for  the  knighting  of  his  son.    The  condition  was  the 
confirmation  of  the  Charters,  and  a  great  oath  for  his  faithful 
observance  of  them.    3  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles, 
22-24. 

1  2  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  254-257,  266-267. 

2  2  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  287. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  91 

It  would  be  too  much,  it  seems,  to  say  that 
the  numerous  cases  in  which  the  Council 
denied  to  the  king  the  financial  assistance 
which  he  urged  upon  them,  prove  the  full 
control,  in  any  modern  sense,  of  this  body 
over  taxation.  The  relation  of  Council  to  Represen- 
king  was  still  personal;  the  barons  granted  existed  in 

their  support  or  refused  it,  as  vassal  to  feudal  Henry's 

National 
lord,  by  no  means  as  representatives  of  the  Council 

nation  to  the  government.  The  grants  seem, 
indeed,  to  have  been  binding  upon  the  nation 
at  large,  and  consequently  it  might  be  argued 
that  the  barons  were  really  representatives 
of  the  nation,  capable  of  acting  for  it.  But 
the  argument  is  based  upon  a  confusion  of 
terms;  representation  in  the  modern  sense 
was  not  at  that  time  in  England  invented  or 
thought  of.  A  baron  who  by  virtue  of  his 
prominence  or  his  power  makes  a  promise 
which  is  binding  upon  those  of  less  prominence 
or  less  power,  is  not  a  representative  but  a 
small  despot.  Such  a  position  the  barons 
held  who  composed  the  National  Council 
under  Henry  III;  they  acted  for  the  nation, 
but  they  were  not  in  the  modern  sense  repre- 
sentatives. The  inference  is  readily  drawn, 


92  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

then,  that  a  body  thus  constituted  could  not 
exercise  any  more  than  a  personal  control 
over  taxation. 

The  time  was  at  hand,  however,  when  the 
period  of  transition  to  the  impersonal  relation 
should  begin,  —  the  relation  which  exists 
between  representatives  of  the  nation  and 
the  government  as  personified  in  the  king,  the 
relation  recognizable  to-day  between  the  layers 
of  taxes  and  the  spenders  of  the  proceeds  of 
taxation. 

Knights  of        In  1254,  during  Henry's  absence  in  Gas- 
conv»  *^e  regents,  Queen  Eleanor  and  Earl 


the  Coun-  Richard  Cornwall,  took  steps  to  amplify  the 
Council  for  the  time  being  with  the  lesser 
feudal  tenants  for  the  purpose  of  laying  taxes.1 

1  One  of  the  royal  writs  ran  thus: 

"Rex  Vicecomiti  Bedeford,  et  Bukingeham.,  salutem.  .  .  . 
Tibi  districte  prsecipimus,  quod  preeter  omnes  praedictos 
venire  facias  coram  consilio  nostro  apud  Westmonasterium 
in  quindena  Paschse  proximo  futuri,  quatuor  legales  et 
discretes  milites  de  comitatibus  praedictis  quos  iidem  comi- 
tatus  ad  hoc  elgerint,  vice  omnium  et  singulorum  eorundem 
comitatuum,  videlicet  duos  de  uno  comitatu  et  duos  de  alio,  ad 
providendum,  una  cum  militibus  aliorum  comitatuum  quos 
ad  eundem  diem  vocari  fecimus,  quale  auxilium  nobis  in 
taut.  -i  necessitate  impendere  voluerint.  Et  tu  ipse  militibus 
et  aliis  de  comitatibus  prsedictis  necessitatem  nostram  et 
tarn  urgens  negotium  nostrum  diligenter  exponas,  et  eos  ad 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  93 

John,  at  his  St.  Albans  Council  in  1213,  had 
had  recourse  to  a  similar  expedient,  though 
the  principle  involved  was  quite  different.  In 
the  earlier  instance  a  representative  reeve 
and  four  men  from  each  township  and  the 
royal  demesne  were  summoned  in  order  to 
assess  the  amount  due  in  restitution  to  the 
clergy.  In  the  latter  the  royal  writs  directed 
that  from  each  of  the  counties  two  "lawful  and 
discreet  knights"  be  sent  up  to  Westminster, 
"  who  together  with  the  knights  from  the  other 
counties  whom  we  have  had  summoned  for 
the  same  day,  shall  arrange  what  aid  they  are 
willing  to  pay  us  in  our  need."  The  knights 
were  to  be  chosen  by  the  counties  themselves, 
probably  in  the  county  court,  since  there  the 
machinery  of  election  already  was  in  exist- 
ence. The  election  of  knights  by  the  body  of 
suitors  who  composed  the  courts  of  the  coun- 
ties was  by  no  means  a  new  thing;  for  eighty 
years  there  is  evidence  of  the  election  of  such 

competens  auxiliutn  nobis  ad  prsesens  impendendum  efficaciter 
inducas;  ita  quod  prsedicti  quatuor  milites  praefato  consilio 
nostro  ad  prsedictum  terminum  precise  respondere  possint 
super  praedicto  auxilio  pro  singulis  comitatuum  prsedic- 
torum."  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  376.  Translation  in 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Select  Documents,  55. 


94  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

representatives  for  local  purposes,  and  it  would 
be  no  startling  innovation  to  extend  this  func- 
tion of  the  courts  to  the  election  of  representa- 
tives in  a  national  council.  In  the  present 
instance,  furthermore,  there  is  in  the  writ  an 
implication,  though  the  deduction  is  hazardous, 
that  the  matter  of  the  aid  received  previous 
consideration  in  the  county  courts  themselves. 
"And  you  yourself  carefully  set  forth  to  the 
knights  and  others  of  the  said  counties,"  so 
continues  the  instructions  to  the  sheriff,  "our 
need  and  how  urgent  is  our  business,  and  ef- 
fectually persuade  them  to  pay  us  an  aid  suf- 
ficient for  the  time  being;  so  that  the  afore- 
said .  .  .  knights  at  the  aforesaid  time  shall 
be  able  to  give  definite  answer  concerning  the 
said  aid  to  the  aforesaid  council,  for  each  of 
the  said  counties."  The  upshot  of  this  Council 
was  disappointing  to  the  crown;  nothing  re- 
sulted except  a  renewal  of  complaints  against 
the  royal  administration.  Simon  de  Montfort, 
whose  position  as  the  defender  of  the  rights  of 
Parliament,  was  as  yet  quite  misapprehended, 
took  occasion  to  warn  the  Council  against  the 
policy  of  the  king.1 

1  3  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  75. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  95 

The  events  of  the  next  fifteen  years,  vital 
as  they  are  to  constitutional  history,  must  be 
briefly  gone  over.  It  is  the  period  of  the 
Barons'  War  and  the  Provisions  of  Oxford, 
and  finally  of  Simon  de  Montfort's  famous 
Parliament  of  1265.  But  the  years  did  not 
intimately  affect  taxation,  save  as  they  pro- 
vided more  or  less  definitely  for  the  body  which 
should  ultimately  have  control  over  the  grant- 
ing of  taxes.  Taxation  was  a  prime  cause  of 
the  baronial  irritation  which  led  to  the  trouble 
with  the  king,  but  the  conflict  was  not  a 
moving  cause  in  the  final  attainment  by  Parlia- 
ment of  exclusive  power  over  taxation.  The 
chain  of  events,  however,  in  so  far  as  they  are 
pertinent  to  the  subject,  must  be  traced. 

At  the  Hoketide  Parliament1  of  1255  the  strife  be- 
usual  demand  was  made  for  an  elective  ministry  an 
and  was  refused ; 2  at  the  adjourned  session  of  ment 

1  "To  a  general  assembly  of  the  barons  at  London  in  1246, 
the  name  of  Parliament,  which  had  previously  been  indis- 
criminately ascribed  to  assemblies  of  various  kinds,  is  for 
the  first  time  given  by  a  contemporary  chronicler,  Matthew 
Paris.     Henceforth   it  became  specially  though  not  exclu- 
sively, the  appellation  of  the  National  Council."    Taswell- 
Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  187. 

2  3  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  119. 


96  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

this  Parliament  the  following  October,  an 
aid  to  the  king  was  denied  on  the  distinct 
ground  that  the  members,  all  magnates,  had 
not  been  summoned  according  to  the  terms 
of  Magna  Carta.1  The  struggle,  vain  and 
threatening  of  future  ill,  went  on  through  the 
next  year,  until  by  1257  the  king  found  himself 
plunged  inextricably  into  debt,  much  of  which 
was  owing  to  the  Pope.  The  latter  had  under- 
taken a  war  with  Manfred  with  whom  was 
lined  up  the  Hohenstaufen  power,  to  seat  on 
the  throne  of  Sicily  Edmund  Crouchback, 
Henry's  second  son.2  Henry  owed  him  135,000 
marks,  and  it  is  said  that  the  Londoners, 
the  sheriffs,  the  clergy,  and  the  Jews  therefore 
suffered. 

The  first  Parliament  of  1258  was  held  at 
London  on  the  9th  April  and  sat  for  about  a 
month.  The  purple  robes  in  which  Henry 
garbed  his  foreign  favorites  shone  richly 
against  the  gray  background  of  his  asserted 
poverty,  and  their  brilliance  was  enough  to 
blind  the  eyes  of  the  Parliament  to  his  necessi- 

1  3  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  141-142. 

2  Cf.  2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  70-73,  and  references  there 
cited. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  97 

ties.  Wars  were  threatened  on  the  northern 
and  western  borders,  and  the  Pope  was  brand- 
ishing his  sword  of  excommunication  in  case 
Henry  continued  his  dilatory  policy  toward 
Apulia.  Parliament  refused  his  urgent  plea 
for  a  tallage  of  one-third  of  the  movables  of 
the  realm,  reprehending  the  simplicity  of  the 
king  in  making  his  bargain  with  the  Pope.1 
An  outbreak  was  avoided  by  an  adjournment 
until  the  llth  June  at  Oxford. 

On  that  day  the  barons  and  higher  clergy  Provisions 
came  together,  bringing  with  them  a  heavy  ?lj?tford' 
burden  of  grievances.  A  scheme  of  reform 
was  drawn  up  in  the  famous  Provisions  of 
Oxford.  They  projected  the  control  of  the 
government  by  a  number  of  representative 
committees.2  The  only  point  upon  which 
the  Provisions  of  Oxford  touch  the  question 
of  taxation  is  in  the  section  which  arranges 
for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  twenty- 
four  "by  the  whole  of  Parliament  on  behalf 
of  the  community  "  to  treat  of  the  aid  demanded 

i  3  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  267-268,  271-272. 

22  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  76-80;  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart. 
378  ff.;  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  188-189; 
3  Matt.  Par.  Chron.  Maj.  trans.  Giles,  285-288. 


98  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

by  the  king  for  the  prosecution  of  his  war. 
The  list  of  grievances,  furthermore,  for  which 
the  Provisions  were  to  win  redress,  did  not 
bring  up  the  matter  of  the  royal  power  to 
levy  taxes  in  any  degree  whatsoever.1  The 
nearest  approach  to  such  an  objection  came 
in  the  complaint  against  extortions  under  the 
feudal  law  and  in  the  reference  to  the  manner 
in  which  prises  were  exacted.  In  each  in- 
stance the  remonstrance  was  not  against  the 
principle  but  against  the  manner  in  which  the 
act  was  accomplished. 

Character         The    Provisions    of    Oxford    furnished    no 
°f  ti  advance  in  the  general  progress  toward  parlia- 

mentary taxation.  The  only  step  was  a  step 
backward.  They  provided  for  one  committee 
which  should  have  the  power  of  granting  an 
aid  to  the  king,  and  delegated  to  another 
most  of  the  business  of  Parliament.  These 
were  movements,  not  toward  the  ideal  grasped 
in  the  time  of  Edward  I  and  realized  in  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  but  of  a  character  distinctly 
retrogressive.  The  government  was  advan- 
tageous to  none  save  to  those  who  participated 
in  it,  and  between  the  participants  there  was 

i  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  382-387,  especially  caps.  22,  23. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS  99 

no  mediator  in  case  the  distribution  of  advan- 
tages should  be  questioned.  Theoretically  the 
king's  authority  remained,  though  it  was  in 
restraint;  in  fact  it  was  given  to  an  irresponsi- 
ble and  self-interested  body  of  barons  subject 
to  the  mutual  jealousies  which  are  always  the 
incidents  of  oligarchic  rule. 

The  provisional  government  lasted  for  a 
year  and  a  half  from  its  erection  in  June, 
1258,  without  interruption;  thereafter  it  con- 
tinued for  four  years  with  a  number  of  breaks 
until  1263,  the  year  in  which  civil  war  began 
between  Earl  Simon  and  the  king. 

In  the  middle  of  1261  Henry  produced  bulls 
which  the  Pope  Alexander  IV  had  granted 
to  him  shortly  before  he  died  absolving  him 
from  his  oath  to  observe  the  Provisions,  and 
pronouncing  excommunication  upon  all  those 
who  should  contravene  the  absolution.1  The 
act  of  Henry  all  but  brought  forward  the  im- 
pending civil  war.  Simon  de  Montfort  and  King  and 
his  colleagues,  probably  in  the  hope  of  winning 


the  popular  mind   to   their  cause,   acting  as  of  the  shire 
chiefs    of    the    provisional    government,    ad-  assemblies 
dressed  summonses  to  the  various  sheriffs  in- 
1  1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  2,  62. 


100  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

viting  three  knights  from  each  shire  to  attend 
an  assembly  at  St.  Albans.  Henry,  fearing  a 
general  movement  against  him,  sent  out 
counter  orders  to  the  sheriffs,  requiring  them 
to  send  knights  not  to  St.  Albans  but  to 
Windsor,  nobiscum  super  proemissis  colloquium 
habituros.1  In  all  probability  neither  of  the 
assemblies  met ;  at  least  there  is  no  suggestion  of 
a  session  of  either  in  the  chronicles  of  the  time. 
They  assume  importance,  however,  as  fore- 
shadowing the  later  Parliaments  of  Simon  de 
Montfort,  and  as  indicative  of  his  policy  to  util- 
ize the  county  organization  in  national  matters. 
Civil  War,  Two  years  later,  in  June,  1263,  Simon  de 
Montfort  began  war.  The  following  De- 
cember the  differences  between  the  parties 
were  laid  before  Louis  IX  of  France  for  his 
decision.  He,  not  unsympathetic  with  the 
plight  of  his  royal  brother,  made  an  award 
in  favor  of  Henry,  saving  to  the  barons  and 
Earl  Simon  only  their  rights  under  the  Char- 
ter.2 But  Simon  de  Montfort  was  in  a  posi- 
tion to  protest  against  the  verdict.  He  vindi- 

1  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  405. 

2  Louis's  award  was  the  so-called  "  Mise  of  Amiens."   Given 
in  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  406.    1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  2  83. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS          101 

cated  his  attitude  at  the  battle  of  Lewes, 
14th  May,  1264,  and  Henry,  his  relatives, 
and  his  principal  adherents  found  themselves 
prisoners  in  the  hands  of  the  barons.  A  com- 
promise was  effected  by  the  Mise  of  Lewes, 
which,  after  a  reconfirmation  of  the  Provisions, 
provided  for  the  release  of  Henry  and  named 
a  new  set  of  arbitrators.1  By  the  fourth  article 
of  the  compromise,  Henry  was  to  take  the 
advice  of  his  counsellors  in  administering 
justice  and  choosing  ministers;  he  was  to 
observe  the  Charters  and  to  live  moderately. 

But   Earl   Simon   was   not    satisfied.      He  Knights  of 
garrisoned  all  the  royal  castles  with  soldiers  ^eps^^ 
friendly  to  his  cause,  and  on  the  4th  June  ment,  1264 
sent  out  writs  to  the  counties  in  the  king's 
name  summoning   to   London   the  following 
October,  "four  lawful  and  discreet  knights," 
who  were  to  be  "elected  for  the  purpose  by 
the  assent  of  the  county  to  act  for  the  whole  of 
that  county,"  and  were  to  "treat  with  us  of 
the   above-stated    business."  2     This    Parlia- 
ment when  it  met  proceeded  to  compose  a 

1  Stubbs,  Sd.  Chart.  334 ;  Chron.  Rishanger,  Camden  So- 
ciety, 37. 

2  1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  2,  88-89. 


102  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

new  scheme  of  government,  the  chief  feature 
of  which  was  a  standing  council,  indirectly 
elected  by  the  barons,  which  should  be  the 
moving  force  behind  all  royal  acts,  —  that  is, 
the  king  was  to  act  only  in  accordance  with 
the  will  of  the  council.1 

Simon  de         Simon  de  Montfort  on  the  24th  December 
g[e&t          following  issued  writs  in  the  king's  name  bid- 

Pariia-        ding  the  sheriffs  to  send  up  two  knights  from 

meat,  1265          b      . 

the  shires,  and  each  of  some  twenty-one  espe- 
cially designated  cities  and  boroughs  to  send 
up  two  citizens  and  burgesses  to  London.2 
The  Parliament  was  called  for  the  20th 

1  This  Parliament  and  the  scheme  of  government  which 
was  drawn  up  at  the  session  is  the  subject  of  considerable 
dispute.  See  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  93-95;  and  Medley, 
Eng.  Const.  Hist.  133-134.  The  scheme  itself  is  given  in 
Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  412  ff,  and  in  1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  2, 89. 

2 The  writ  is  in  part  as  follows:  "Item  mandatum  est 
singulis  vicecomitibus  per  Angliam  quod  venire  faciant 
duos  milites  de  legalibus,  probioribus,  et  discretioribus  mili- 
tibus  singulorum  comitatuum  ad  regem  Londoniis  in  octavis 
praedictis  in  forma  supradicta. 

"Item  in  forma  praedicta  scribitur  civibus  Eboraci,  civibus 
Lincolniae,  et  ceteris  burgis  Angliae,  quod  mittant  in  forma 
prsedicta  duos  de  discretioribus,  legalioribus  et  probioribus 
tarn  civibus  quam  burgensibus. 

"Item  in  forma  praedicta  mandatum  est  baronibus  et 
probis  hominibus  Quinque  Portuum.  .  .  ."  Stubbs,  Sel. 
Charters,  415;  1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  2,  93. 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS          103 

January,  1265.  Beside  the  representatives 
of  the  cities  and  boroughs,  there  was  a  very 
full  gathering  of  the  clergy.  The  baronagCj 
who  as  a  body  looked  upon  Earl  Simon's 
cause  with  small  favor,  were  called  upon  to 
send  only  twenty-three  of  their  number,  five 
earls  and  eighteen  barons. 

It  is  upon  this  Parliament  that  the  fame  of  The  first 
Simon   de   Montfort   as   the   Creator   of   the     "       ° 


House  of  Commons  is  established.     Unless  representa- 

i  .  „  •,  tionin 

we  admit  as  an  instance  of  borough  represen-  Parliament 

tation  the  summons  of  the  reeve  and  four  men 

from  the  demesne  townships  to  the  St.  Albans 

Council  in  1213,  we  have  here  the  first  partic- 

ipation of  the  burgher  class,  the  Third  Estate 

of  the  Realm,  in  the  Parliament  of  the  na- 

tion.     It   was   to   compose,    along   with    the 

recently  admitted  representatives  of  the  shires, 

the  House  of  Commons,  and  in  its  hands  the  The  House 

destiny  of  the  power  to  tax  was  to  lie.    That  ^ons™" 

Simon  de  Montfort  summoned   the  citizens  fore- 

,    ,  i        -r»     T  •     shadowed 

and   burgesses  to  the  Parliament  or   1265  is 

attributable  chiefly  to  the  fact  that  they  were 
amongst  the  most  ardent  of  his  supporters.1 

1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  this  rather  iconoclastic  view  of 
Simon  de  Montfort,  see  Medley,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  134. 


104  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

It  is  extremely  doubtful  that  he  acted  in  accord- 
ance with  any  great  scheme  of  constitutional 
reform.  He  called  the  burghers  because  he 
found  their  support  useful,  and  therein  lay 
the  greatest  hope  for  the  future;  the  time  was 
not  far  distant  when  a  greater  than  Simon  de 
Montfort  should  discover  that  a  Parliament 
in  which  cities  and  boroughs  and  counties 
were  alike  represented  was  the  most  convenient 
means  of  supplying  the  royal  treasury. 

As  for  Simon  de  Montfort's  Parliament, 
its  importance  to  taxation  lies  wholly  in  its 
significance  in  the  elaboration  of  the  represent- 
ative principle;  there  is  no  record  that  it  did 
aught  with  respect  to  taxation.  Its  business 
was  mostly  confined  to  concluding  arrange- 
ments begun  in  the  Mise  of  Lewes  for  the 
government  of  the  kingdom. 

Last  years  What  was  left  of  the  reign  of  Henry  III, 
Henry  m  already  stretched  beyond  its  time,  is  all  but 
negligible.  The  position  of  Simon  de  Mont- 
fort  was  too  favorable  to  keep  him  clear  of 
jealous  rivals.  War  speedily  started  up  again 
and  in  an  early  battle,  that  of  Evesham,  the 
great  earl  was  slain.  Two  years  thereafter, 
the  royalist  party  managed  to  get  the  upper 


CUSTOM  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  GRANTS          105 

hand  and  the  war  came  to  an  end.  Henry 
was  wise  enough,  or  old  enough,  not  to  tempt 
Providence;  he  continued  his  reign  according 
to  the  dictates  of  law  and  of  good  policy.  By 
the  statute  of  Marlborough  in  1267  were 
granted  most  of  the  measures  of  reform  which 
had  been  demanded  nine  years  previously  in 
the  Mad  Parliament  of  Oxford.  With  the 
affairs  of  state  running  thus  smoothly,  Henry 
moved  tranquilly  down  the  long  slope  of  his 
last  years. 

In  October,  1269,  there  occurred  an  incident 
which,  if  indeed  the  report  be  well  founded, 
sums  up  the  attainments  of  his  reign.  Henry 
brought  together  a  great  assembly  in  honor  of 
Saint  Edward,  an  assembly  of  magnates  lay 
and  clerical,  and  likewise  numbering  certain 
representatives  of  the  cities  and  boroughs.1 
After  the  conclusion  of  the  ceremony,  Henry 
convened  the  barons  as  a  Parliament,  and  re- 
ceived from  it  a  grant  of  a  twentieth  of  lay 
movables.  Whether  or  not  the  burgesses  and 
citizens  participated  in  the  offering  to  the  king 
is  unknown.  But  if  that  be  the  truth,  en- 

iT.  Wykes,  Chron.  a.  1269,  226-227,  in  Stubbs,  Sd. 
Chart.  337. 


106  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

veloped  as  it  is  in  the  mist,  then  we  can  see 
the  newly-made  legislators  actually  participa- 
ting in  the  most  important  of  legislative  func- 
tions, and  we  are  assured  that  the  work  of 
Simon  de  Montfort  had  indeed  borne  early 
fruit. 


IV 

LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

1272-1297 

HENRY  died  the  16th  November,  1272,  with 
his  son,  the  great  Edward,  away  on  the 
crusade.  But  there  was  no  question  as  to 
the  succession;  the  most  powerful  of  the 
barons  swore  fealty  to  Edward  four  days  Edward  I, 
after  his  father's  death,  and  when  he  returned  1272~1307 
to  England  in  the  middle  of  1274,  he  was 
crowned  King  of  England.  In  the  interim, 
the  government  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  York;  the  barons  still  resting  after 
their  struggle  with  Henry  III  engaged  in  no 
warfare  other  than  their  usual  petty  tumults. 
The  regular  income  of  the  crown  sufficed  for 
the  expenses  of  government. 

The  young  king  whose  way  to  the  throne 
was  thus  paved  for  him,  was  one  of  the  greatest, 
if  indeed  he  was  not  in  truth  the  greatest, 
figure  which  ever  graced  the  English  throne. 
He  is  credited  with  being  a  lover  of  truth  and 


108  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

purity,  honorable  and  contented  with  frugal 
living;  he  was  wary  and  at  the  same  time  de- 
termined; an  able  councillor,  ingenious  in 
working  out  the  details  of  a  plan,  he  was  yet 
most  sure  in  accomplishment.  Edward  was 
by  instinct  a  legislator,  and  equally  instinctive 
was  his  love  of  arbitrary  power.  Yet  his 
wisdom  kept  him  short  of  tyranny  and  showed 
him  that  the  fittest  means  of  conserving  his 
own  advantage  was  to  allow  Parliament  rea- 
sonable leeway  and  scrupulously  to  regard 
the  forms  of  its  enactments.  Edward  was, 
however,  capable  of  utilizing  the  letter  of  the 
law  to  the  prejudice  of  its  spirit »  And  therein 
lay  the  chief  defect  in  his  generally  ascribed 
character  of  perfect  monarch;  he  was  not 
above  using  the  law  to  contravene  the  purposes 
for  which  the  law  itself  was  designed. 

Representation,  which  had  "ripened  in 
the  hand  of  Simon  de  Montfort,"  Edward  I 
made  the  common  fruit  of  the  people.  Ed- 
ward had  the  conception  that  the  nation,  if  it 
be  strong  enough  to  live  in  the  face  of  dangers, 
must  act  as  the  united  backing  of  a  strong  king. 
The  relation,  as  he  intended  it,  between  king 
and  people  is  reciprocal;  the  strength  of  the 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  109 

one  is  the  strength  of  the  other,  and  neither 
must  predominate.  That  was  precisely  the 
relation  which  such  a  Parliament  as  that 
called  by  Edward  I  in  1295,  was  capable  of 
bringing  about;  in  it  each  of  the  three  estates 
had  an  essential  share  in  the  carrying  on  of 
the  government. 

The  early  part  of  his  reign  is  of  importance 
secondary  to  that  of  the  decade  ending  with 
1297.  But  an  understanding  of  the  supremely 
important  crisis  which  brought  about  the 
Confirmation  of  the  Charters  is  only  to  be 
built  upon  a  knowledge  of  the  various  events 
which  preceded  it. 

Before  Edward  returned  from  Palestine, 
his  regents  summoned  to  a  Parliament  held 
at  Hilary  tide  1273,  not  only  prelates  and  bar- 
ons, but  also  four  knights  from  each  shire 
and  four  citizens  from  each  city.1  The 
purpose  of  the  convention  was  the  taking  of 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  new  king,  and 
the  call  was  prompted  doubtlessly  by  the 
need  of  having  the  whole  nation  held  loyal 
to  the  absent  and  still  uncrowned  Edward. 
Here  was  another  instance  of  the  growing 

i  Ann.  Winton.  a.  1273,  113;  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  429. 


110  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

appreciation  of  the   usefulness    of    the  com- 
mons. 

There  was  no  taxation  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward I,  except  as  the  clergy  taxed  the  people 
1275,  and     for    the    prosecution    of    the    crusade,    until 

the  Stat- 

Edward   called   his   first   Parliament   on   the 


April,  1275,  at  Westminster.  The  com- 
position of  the  assemblage  is  uncertain;  the 
implication  of  the  Chronicler  is  that  it  was 
a  Parliament  of  magnates,1  but  the  intro- 
ductory clause  of  the  Statute  of  Westminster 
has  it  otherwise.2  "These  be  the  Acts  of 
King  Edward  .  .  ."  it  says,  "by  his  council 
and  by  the  assent  of  archbishops,  bishops, 
abbots,  priors,  earls,  barons  and  the  commu- 
nity of  the  realm  being  thither  assembled." 
The  Statute  of  Westminster,  which  was  com- 
posed of  some  fifty-one  articles,  included 
a  provision  for  regulating  the  feudal  aids 
which  were  required  upon  the  knighting  of 
the  lord's  son  or  on  the  event  of  the  marriage 
of  his  daughter.  Twenty  shillings  on  the 
knight's  fee  and  twenty  shillings  from  each 
parcel  of  land  held  in  socage  yielding  twenty 

i  Ann.  Winton.  a.  1275,  119;  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  430. 
*  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  450. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  111 

pounds  annually,  were  to  be  the  maximum 
rates  thereafter. 

The  great  advantages  gained  by  the  nation  A  custom 
under  the  Statute  of  Westminster  were  not  ° 
won  without  a  price.  The  same  Parliament 
made  a  grant  of  a  custom  on  wool,  woolfells, 
and  leather.1  The  parties  to  the  grant  were 
essentially  the  same  as  those  who  registered 
their  assent  in  the  preamble  of  the  statute; 
there  was,  however,  this  singular  difference, 
that  it  was  done  "at  the  instance  and  request 
of  the  merchants."  The  amount  levied  was 
"a  half -mark  from  each  sack  of  wool,  and  a 
half-mark  from  each  three  hundred  wool- 
fells,  which  make  a  sack,  and  one  mark  from 
each  last  of  leather,  exported  from  the  realm 
of  England,"  etc. 

1 " .  .  .  .  archiepiscopi,  episcopi,  et  alii  praelati  regni 
Anglise  ac  comites,  barones,  et  nos  (William,  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke) et  communitate  ejusdem  regni  ad  instantiam  et  roga- 
tum  mercatorum  pluribus  de  causis  unanimiter  concess- 
erimus  magnifico  principi  et  domino  nostro  carissimo  domino 
Edwardo  Dei  gratia  regi  Angliae  illustri,  pro  nobis  et  hsere- 
dibus  nostris,  dimidiam  marcam  de  quolibet  sacco  lanse  et 
dimidiam  marcam  pro  singulis  trescentis  pellibus  lanutis 
quad  faciunt  unum  saccum,  et  unam  marcam  de  quolibet 
lesta  coriorum,  exeuntibus  regnum  Anglise.  .  .  ."  Stubbs,  Sel. 
Chart.  451 ;  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  69,  translation. 


112  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  importance,  both  in  a  forward  view 
and  in  retrospect  of  this  grant  of  a  wool  cus- 
tom, is  very  great.  Parliament  in  granting 
this  custom  assumed  the  power  of  assenting 
to  a  tax  which  previously  had  been  considered 
within  the  peculiar  province  of  the  king.  It 
made  a  definite  statement  of  what  was  to 
be  taken  subsequently  as  the  legal  rate  of 
duty  chargeable  upon  exports  of  wool.  The 
rate,  which  since  the  beginning  of  the  century 
had  been  agreed  upon  between  royal  officers 
and  merchants  as  their  reasonable  charge  was 
this  half  mark  (6s.  Sd.)  on  each  sack  of  wool 
weighing  364  pounds,  or  on  the  estimated 
equivalent  of  a  sack,  300  woolfells,  and  a  mark 
upon  each  last  (or  load)  of  leather.1  Exactions 
above  this  rate  were  known  as  mala  tolta,  the 
evil  tolls,  and  the  phrase  had  been  shortened 
to  the  single  word  maletolt.  The  forty-first 
chapter  of  Magna  Carta  had  promised  to  all 
merchants  freedom  "from  all  evil  tolls,"  though 
it  continued  the  "ancient  and  right  customs." 
Apparently,  however,  Henry  III  with  respect 
to  this  clause  as  in  many  another  similar  in- 

1   See  1  Hubert  Hall,  Customs  Revenue  of  England,  65-68; 
2,  117-118;  Medley,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  517-518. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  113 

stance,  did  not  deem  himself  bound  to  adhere 
scrupulously  to  his  promise.  The  Parliament 
of  Edward  I  at  Westminster  in  1275  settled  the 
matter;  the  "great  and  ancient  custom"  on 
wool  was  legally  determined,  and  thereafter 
a  larger  exaction  would  be  regarded  as  illegal.1 

i  Wool,  hides  and  leather  formed  the  bulk  of  the  early 
exports  from  England.  Wine  was  the  principal  import.  It 
was  on  these  articles  of  merchandise,  and  such  others  as  the 
merchants  brought  in  and  took  out,  that  duties  had  been 
charged  since  early  times.  The  taxes  had  become  customary 
and  were  spoken  of  as  "consuetu dines,"  or  customs.  The 
basis  for  the  exaction  was  the  understanding  that  the  mer- 
chants, most  of  them  foreigners,  should  be  given  protection 
by  the  king.  The  early  prisage  on  wine  amounted  to  one 
cask  from  every  cargo  of  from  ten  to  twenty  casks,  arriving 
at  a  port  of  England.  From  ships  carrying  more  than  twenty 
casks,  two  casks  were  exacted.  Sometimes  the  duty  instead 
of  being  made  in  wine  was  compounded  for  in  money.  The 
amount  of  the  export  tax  on  wool  in  the  beginning  is  not 
known.  In  merchandise  of  other  sorts,  the  payment  amounted 
to  a  tenth  or  a  fifteenth  of  the  value  of  the  goods. 

Magna  Carta  abolished  illegal  exactions  on  goods  retain- 
ing only  the  "ancient  and  lawful  customs"  above  mentioned. 
Taxable  commodities  were  wine,  wool,  and  general  merchan- 
dise. In  many  instances,  in  spite  of  the  prohibitions  in  the 
Charter,  the  customs  amounted  to  confiscation.  Until  the 
time  of  Edward  I  there  was  unending  irregularity  in  the 
management  of  the  customs.  Merchant  strangers,  by  Cap. 
41  of  the  Great  Charter  were  to  have  "  safe  and  secure  exit 
from  England,  and  entry  to  England  .  .  .  buying  and  selling 
by  the  ancient  and  right  customs,  quit  from  all  evil  Tolls." 


114  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Edward's         Edward  summoned  a  second  Parliament  for 
Pariia-        ^ne  l^th  October  following  in  a  manner  which 

ment,  13th   gives   ground  for   the   presumption   that   the 

October, 

1275  presence  of  the  knights  of  the  shire  in  a  parlia- 

ment designed  primarily  for  the  raising  of 
money,  was  already  becoming  a  custom.  The 
point  cannot  be  better  illustrated  than  by  a 
translation  of  the  writ  itself.1  "Since  we 
have  bidden  the  prelates  and  magnates  of 
our  realm,"  so  it  goes,  "to  be  present  at  our 
Parliament  which  we  will  hold  ...  at  West- 
minster, to  treat  with  us  both  concerning 
the  condition  of  our  realm  and  of  certain  of 

1  "Edwardus  Dei  Gratia  Rex  Angliae  dominus  Hiberniae 
et  dux  Aquitannise  vicecomiti  Kanciae  salutem.  Cum  prse- 
latis  et  magnatibus  regni  nostri  mandaverimus  ut  ipsi  parlia- 
mento  nostro,  quod  apud  Westmonasterium  in  quindena 
Sancti  Michaelis  proxime  futura  tenebimus.  Domino 
concedenti  intersint  ad  tractandum  nobiscum  tarn  super 
statum  regni  nostri  quam  super  quibusdam  negotiis  nostris 
quae  eis  exponemus  ibidem,  et  expediens  sit  quod  duo  milites  de 
comitatu  prsedicto  de  discretioribus  et  legalioribus  militibus 
ejusdem  comitatus  intersint  eidem  parliamento,  ex  causis 
praedictis  tibi  praecipimus  quod  in  pleno  comitatu  tuo  de 
assensu  ejusdem  comitatus  eligi  facias  dictos  duos  militis 
et  eos  ad  nos  usque  Westmonasterium  pro  communitate 
dicti  comitatus  venire  facias  ad  dictum  diem  ad  tractandum 
nobiscum  et  cum  praedictis  praelatis  et  magnatibus  super 
negotiis  praedictis.  Et  hoc  non  omittas.  ..."  2  Stubbs, 
Const.  Hist.  Eng.  234,  note  5. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  115 

our  business  which  we  will  declare  to  them  at 
the  same  time,  and  as  it  is  expedient  that 
two  knights  from  the  county  above-mentioned 
be  present  at  the  same  Parliament  from  the 
body  of  discreet  and  lawful  knights  of  the 
same  county,  by  the  reasons  above-stated  we 
command  you  that  you  cause  to  be  elected 
in  your  full  county-court  (in  pleno  comitatu) 
by  the  assent  of  the  same  county,  the  said 
two  knights  and  that  you  cause  them  to  come 
to  us  at  Westminster  in  behalf  of  the  commu- 
nity of  the  said  county  on  the  said  day,  to  treat 
with  us  and  with  the  above-mentioned  prel- 
ates and  magnates  about  the  above-stated 
business.  And  omit  none  of  it." 

Thus  we  observe  that  it  was  "expedient"  Attendance 
for  the  lesser  landholders  to  be  present  in  a  ^J01!?!3 

of  the  Shire 

Parliament  which  was  called  for  the  purpose  "  expedi- 
of  securing  the  grant  of  a  tax.    The  tone  of  uses  of 
the  writ  is  most  matter-of-fact,  as  though  the 
knights  of  the  shire  were  considered  scarcely 
less  usual  attendants  at  Edward's  parliaments 
than    the    magnates    themselves.      That    the 
king    "declared    unto    them    certain    of    his 
business"    and   that    they   proved   amenable 
is   exhibited   by  the    fact    that    this    Parlia- 


116  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

merit  granted  a  fifteenth  of  temporal  mov- 
ables.1 

The  next  event  of  importance  witnessed 
the  extension  of  the  function  of  levying  taxes 
to  the  citizens  and  burgesses.  By  the  fall 
of  1282  Edward  found  himself  in  financial 
difficulties.  Since  the  Parliaments  of  1275 
taxation  had  been  very  light.  He  had  re- 
ceived in  1279  a  scutage  of  forty  shillings  on 
the  fee  on  account  of  the  Welsh  war,2  and  he 
received  assistance  from  the  clergy  in  1279 
and  the  years  following.  Beside  the  income 
resulting  from  these  grants,  he  still  had  his 
custom  on  wool,  but  it  was  far  from  sufficient 
for  his  needs,  and  he  had  been  obliged  to 
have  recourse  to  the  rigid  enforcement  of 
statutes,  rigorous  application  of  writs,  notably 
that  of  Quo  Warrantor  and  in  1278  he  had 
adopted  the  expedient,  in  after  time  to  be 
exercised  frequently,  of  compelling  all  who 

1 1  Rotvli  Parliamentorum,  224. 

2  Ann.  T.  Wykes,  274;  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  431. 

3  The  statute  of  Gloucester,  passed  in  1278,  provided  for 
the  regulation  of  territorial  franchises.     In  accordance  with 
it,  the  itinerant  justices  were  to  inquire  by  what  warrant 
certain  franchises  were  held,  and  the  writ  "quo  warranto" 
was  issued  in  each  case.     Stubbs,  2  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  114-115. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  117 

possessed  ,£20  a  year  in  lands  to  become 
knights,  and  to  pay  the  fee  incidental  to  the 
attainment  of  knighthood.1 

The  Welsh  war  came  on  again  in  1282  and  Provincial 
added  to  the  king's  embarrassment.    He  was  a 
unwilling  to  call  a  Parliament  and  took  the 


i  i-       i  11  rr*    •  o  an(*  York, 

less  public  but  also  less  efficient  means  of  1233 
negotiating  with  individuals  for  money  with 
which  to  carry  on  the  war.  He  sent  royal 
commissioners  abroad  through  the  country 
who  should  plead  the  king's  necessity  and 
accept  grants  from  sheriffs,  bailiffs,  and  mayors 
as  representing  their  respective  communities, 
and  also  from  individual  citizens  and  country- 
men upon  their  own  behalf.2  These  private 
offerings  tided  the  king  over  his  immediate 
necessities.  Late  in  the  fall,  however,  he 
found  his  position  untenable  and  was  forced 
either  to  call  a  Parliament  or  to  adopt  some 
effective  substitute.  Being  at  Rhuddlan,  in 
the  center  of  hostile  country,  and  having  most 
of  his  barons  with  him,  he  was  obliged  to 
formulate  a  new  plan  for  the  attainment  of 

1  Writ  for  distraint  of  knighthood.   1  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  457. 

2  Letter  of  credence  for  a  royal  commissioner  to  raise  an 
aid.    Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  464. 


118  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

his  end  or  else  to  adopt  existing  machinery 
to  his  purposes.  He  sent  out  writs  on  the 
24th  November  bidding  the  sheriffs  send 
representatives  to  two  provincial  assemblies 
at  Northampton  or  York,  as  the  case  might 
be,  for  the  20th  January  following.  The 
members  were  to  include  all  those  who  were 
capable  of  bearing  arms,  and  who  held  lands 
to  the  annual  value  of  ,£20,  not  already  with 
the  army;  four  knights  from  each  county 
having  full  power  for  the  community  of  the 
county;  two  men  from  each  city,  borough, 
and  market  town,  having  like  power  for  the 
community  of  the  same,  "to  hear  and  to  do 
those  things  which  we  on  our  part  will  cause 
to  be  shown  to  them."  l  The  clergy  also 
were  summoned;  the  bishops  were  to  bring 
their  archdeacons,  the  heads  of  religious  houses, 
and  the  proctors  of  the  cathedral  clergy. 

They  make       These    irregular    assemblies    convened    as 
grants  of 

taxes  they  were  bidden,  the  clergy  and  laity  meeting 
separately.  The  knights  and  burgesses  at 
Northampton  made  a  grant  of  a  thirtieth  on 
condition  that  the  barons  do  likewise;2  the 

*  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  465^68. 

*  Ann.  Dunst.  294,  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  433. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  119 

clergy  refused  to  make  any  offering  at  all 
because  the  parochial  clergy  were  not  repre- 
sented. At  York,  the  knights  and  burgesses 
made  the  grant  of  a  thirtieth  without  condition ; 
the  clergy  made  promises  which  they  did  not 
keep.  When  the  collection  was  made,  allow- 
ances were  admitted  for  the  sums  which  had 
been  contributed  upon  private  negotiation. 
Notwithstanding  the  irregular  character  of 
these  Councils  in  view  of  later  developments, 
—  irregular  in  that  the  parochial  clergy  and 
the  baronage  were  not  represented  and  that 
the  meeting  was  not  in  a  single  general  as- 
sembly, —  they  marked  the  "  transition  from 
local  to  that  of  central  assent  to  taxation."  x 
The  king  had  discovered  that  it  was  easier 
to  attain  his  end  through  a  Parliament  than 
by  private  solicitation,  —  that  is,  if  he  were 
to  wait  for  the  assent  of  the  people  at  all.  It 
was  a  step  on  the  road;  Edward  had  decided 
in  favor  of  summoning  a  Parliament  as 
against  asking  for  money  from  individuals. 
It  was  more  profitable. 

There  is  no  further  record  of  taxation  until 
1289,  save  that  of  a  grant  in  1288  from  Nich- 

i  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  460. 


120  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

olas  IV,  of  an  ecclesiastical  tenth  for  six  years 
in  reward  of  Edward's  vow  to  undertake  a 
crusade,1  and  a  scutage  in  1285  on  account  of 
the  Welsh  campaign  of  three  years  before.2 
Edward's  expenses,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
heavy.  The  prosecution  of  his  foreign  inter- 
ests in  Gascony,  where  he  had  been  in  person 
for  three  years,  was  a  heavy  drain  upon  the  ex- 
Parlia-  chequer.  At  the  Parliament  of  1289  the  treas- 

1289  and     urer,  John  Kirkby,  laid  the  royal  needs  before 

1290  the  barons,  who  responded  that  they  would  not 
pay  "until  they  should  see  the  king's  face  in 
his  own  land."  3    Kirkby  began  to  tallage  the 
cities  and  boroughs   and   the   other  demesne 
lands  of  the  king,  "imposing  upon  them  an 
intolerable  sum  of  money."     It  is  probable 
that  this  as  well  as  other  royal  tallages  applied 
only  to  such  of  the  cities  and  boroughs  as 
were  included  in   the  royal  demesne.     As  a 
matter  of  fact,   most  of  the  boroughs  were 
included  in  the  demesnes  of  the  king.4 

1  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  124,  and  authorities  there 
cited. 

2  Cant.  Flor.  Wig.  235.    The  scutage  was  for  forty  shillings 
on  the  knights  fee. 

3  Ann.  Osney,  316,  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart,  434-435. 
*  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  545. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  121 

The  following  spring  Edward  married  his 
younger  daughter  to  the  Earl  of  Gloucester 
and  besought  Parliament  for  an  aid  "pur 
fille  marier,"  though  technically  this  was  to 
be  paid  only  in  the  case  of  the  marriage  of 
the  king's  eldest  daughter.  Parliament  proved 
well-disposed,  however,  and  granted  forty 
shillings  on  the  fee.  The  manner  in  which 
the  barons  and  bishops  who  composed  this  ses- 
sion of  Parliament  made  their  offering  is  note- 
worthy, in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  tenants- 
in-chief  intimated  that  they  could  speak  only 
for  themselves.  They  made  their  own  grant 
of  an  aid  and  extended  it  "as  far  as  in 
them  lies,"  to  "the  community  of  the  whole 
kingdom."  l  The  barons  made  special  note 
of  the  fact  that  the  offering  was  an  advance 
upon  the  two  marks  which  had  been  granted 
to  King  Henry,  and  stipulated  that  this  be  not 
drawn  into  precedent.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  tax  fell  only  on  the  tenants-in-chief  (just 
why  can  only  be  conjectured),  and  the  collec- 

1  ".  .  .  .  magnates  et  proceres  tune  in  parliament©  exis- 
tentes,  pro  se  et  communitate  totius  regni  quantum  in  ipsis 
est,  concesserunt  domino  regi.  .  .  ."  etc.  Stubbs,  SeL 
Chart.  477;  1  Rot.  Pad.  25. 


122  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

tion  was  not  made  until  many  years  after- 
ward. 

A  second  Parliament  was  held  in  July. 
To  it  Edward  summoned  two  or  three  elected 
knights  from  each  shire.1  The  design  be- 
hind the  calling  of  the  Parliament  was  proba- 
bly the  securing  of  a  grant  of  a  fifteenth  of 
temporal  movables,  since  it  develops  that 
such  a  tax  was  laid  at  that  session,  by  clergy 
and  laity  alike.2  Edward  made  a  further 
demand  of  a  tenth  of  spiritual  revenue,  which 
the  clergy  granted  him  on  the  2d  October 
following.3  Apparently  these  offerings  to  the 
king  were  in  payment  for  his  banishment  of 
the  Jews,  who  were  hated  for  their  usurious 
habits  and  for  their  religion;  the  laity  sought 
their  expulsion  for  the  former  reason  and  the 
clergy  ostensibly  for  the  latter,  but  the  offence 
to  their  pockets  doubtless  did  much  to  arouse 
their  religious  zeal  against  the  Jews. 

The  interval  between  1290  and  1294  does 

1  The  boroughs  and  city  of  London  paid  this  tax,  though 
they  were  without  special  representation.    The  writ  of  sum- 
mons is  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  477. 

2  Ann.  Osney,  326,  and  Ann.  Dunst.  362,  in  Stubbs,  Sel. 
Chart.  435. 

a  C&nt.  Flor.  Wig.  243. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  123 

not  furnish  a  wealth  of  material.  The  royal 
poverty  coexisted  with  a  spirit  of  restlessness 
on  the  borders  and  in  France  during  the  four 
years,  and  little  was  accomplished  toward 
relieving  either  the  one  or  the  other.  In 
1291  the  Pope  had  complicated  Edward's  re- 
lations with  the  English  clergy  by  giving  him 
a  tenth  of  spiritual  revenue  for  six  years,1 
and  the  barons  holding  estates  in  Wales  gave 
a  fifteenth  in  1292.  Edward  also  had  recourse 
to  distraint  of  knighthood,  which  as  in  1282 
was  symptomatic  of  a  straitened  treasury.2 

Edward  in  June,  1294,  held  at  Westminster 
a  Parliament  which  was  attended  by  the 
magnates  of  England  and  John  Baliol,  King 
of  Scotland.  The  barons  determined  upon 
war  with  France,  and  proceeded  to  provide 
for  the  outlay  necessitated  by  it,  not  by  a 
general  grant,  but  with  private  contributions. 
John  Baliol  gave  the  income  from  the  estates 
which  he  held  in  England  for  three  years,  and 
the  other  magnates  "promised  aid  according 
to  their  abilities."  3  But  the  supply  was  far 

1 1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  3,  80-81 ;  Con*.  Flor.  Wig.  264. 
»  Cant.  Flor.  Wig.  266. 
3Matth.  Westmon.  Flores,  421. 


124  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

from  being  sufficient;  Edward  was  obliged 
Seizure  of  to  adopt  extraordinary  means  to  meet  his 
obligations.  Shortly  before  the  Westminster 
Council  Edward  had  made  a  move  which  later 
assumed  large  proportions  in  the  parliamen- 
tary eye.  He  seized  all  the  wool  in  the  coun- 
try, belonging  both  to  clergy  and  laymen,  and 
released  it  the  following  July  at  a  rate  which 
meant  scarcely  less  than  redemption,  three 
to  five  marks  on  the  sack,  and  which  was 
greatly  in  excess  of  the  rate  specified  in  1275. 
Edward  had  a  shadow  of  legal  sanction  for 
his  act,  perhaps  the  consent  of  the  wool  mer- 
chants,1 perhaps  an  ordinance  of  his  Council.2 

In  any  event,  he  had  the  great  defense  of  the 
exigencies  of  war,  a  plea  which  he  knew  how 
to  make  effective.  Early  in  July  he  seized 
coined  money  which  had  been  deposited  in 
the  cathedrals  and  religious  houses  for  safe- 
keeping, and  had  it  removed  to  his  treasury 
in  London.  "And  he  got  much  money  which 
he  never  after  restored,"  says  the  Chronicler.3 

Edward  summoned  for  the  21st  September 

1  So  Bishop  Stubbs  conjectures,  2  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  131. 
8  Earth.  Cotton,  De  Rege  Edwardo  I,  246. 
a  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  53-54. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  125 

of  the  same  year  a  general  convocation  of  the 
clergy  to  London.  Beside  the  usual  body  of 
prelates,  there  were  in  attendance  elected 
representatives  of  the  parochial  and  cathedral 
clergy.  Edward  demanded  half  the  spiritual 
revenue,  to  the  great  distress  of  the  ecclesiastics. 
They  demurred,  and  urged  a  postponement 
which  Edward  granted  them.  Upon  their 
reassembling,  the  king  reiterated  his  demand 
upon  pain  of  outlawry  in  case  of  nonfulfill-  clergy 
ment.  The  Dean  of  St.  Paul's  was  so  greatly  &*** 

money  tin- 
terrified  that  he  died  of  fright,  and  then  the  der  pain  of 


grant  was  made.1  This  assembly  takes  its 
importance  from  the  fact  that  here  was  a 
tacit  recognition  of  the  need  of  clerical  consent 
through  representatives  to  taxation. 

On   the   8th   October,   Edward    addressed  Knights  of 

writs  to  the  sheriffs  ordering  the  election  of  the  f1"16 

meet 

two  knights  in  each  shire  who  were  to  come  separately 
to  Westminster  on  the  12th  of  the  following 
month.  They  were  to  be  of  "full  power  for 
themselves  and  the  entire  community  of  the 
county  aforesaid,  to  consult  and  consent  for 
themselves  and  that  community,  to  those  things 
which  the  earls,  barons,  and  chief  men  shall 
i  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  55-57. 


126  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

have  agreed  upon  and  ordained."  *  The  next 
day  Edward  sent  out  supplementary  writs  sum- 
moning two  knights  from  each  shire  in  addition 
to  those  previously  called.  There  was  no  repre- 
sentation from  the  cities  and  boroughs.  The 
laity  proved  more  tractable  than  the  clergy 
had  been  at  their  assembly  in  September,  and 
readily  accomplished  Edward's  purpose.  It 
is  probable  that  their  deliberations  were  not 
delayed,  for  on  the  same  day  with  the  assem- 
bling of  the  Parliament,  was  dated  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  commissioners  of  collection. 
The  laity  of  the  baronage  and  the  shires  gave 
a  tenth  of  all  movables.2  A  sixth  of  movables 
was  drawn  from  the  towns  by  separate  negotia- 
tion, or  perhaps  by  way  of  tallage.3 

The  step  to  the  events  and  attainments  of 

*  Stubbs,  SeL  Chart.  479-482. 

2  Barth.  Cotton,  254  et.  seq. ;  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  57. 

3  The   character  of  this  tax,  indeed  its  very  existence,  is 
questioned.     Matthew  of  Westminster  (422),  mentions  a  tax 
on  the  towns  of  "the  sixth  penny."    It  may  have  been  either 
a  tallage  or  a  tax  by  special  negotiation,  or  it  may  have  been 
granted  by  the  shire  representatives  on  the  theory  that  the 
towns  were  included  within  their  shires,  though  this  is  most 
unlikely.     See   Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  199; 
2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  132;  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  480, 
483-484. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  127 

the  next  year  was  not  long,  but  it  was  of  sur- 
passing importance.  The  year  1295  is  painted 
in  scarlet  on  the  canvas  of  constitutional 
progress  in  England.  It  witnessed  the  Model 
Parliament  in  the  composition  of  which  a 
principle  was  applied  which  must  ever  stand 
as  the  basic  theory  of  popular  legislative  insti-  Events 
tutions ;  indeed,  without  it,  there  can  be  no  ^^eK  up 

lawmaking  by   the  nation  at  all,   and  when  Model 

.  Parlia- 

the   taxing   power   be  included   amongst   the  ment,  1295 

lawmaking  functions,  unless  strict  adherence 
be  given  to  this  principle,  the  taxpayer  can 
never  be  assured  of  a  voice  in  the  laying  of 
taxes.  Edward  I,  furnishing  the  pattern, 
summoned  the  Model  Parliament  on  the 
expressed  theory  that  "what  touches  all,  by 
all  should  be  approved."  Here  was  the  first 
authentic  instance  of  a  perfect  and  complete 
representation  of  the  three  estates  in  a  national 
legislative  body  giving  its  assent  to  taxation. 

The  events  immediately  prior  to  the  calling 
of  the  Parliament  are  of  interest.  Trouble 
was  on  with  the  Welsh,  and  a  Scotch  war 
began  before  the  other  was  over.  The  French 
king  had  transgressed  Edward's  Gascon  pos- 
sessions and  his  sailors  had  landed  at  Dover, 


128 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


"What 
affects  all, 
by  all 
should  be 
approved  " 


putting  a  convent  and  some  houses  to  the 
torch.  Edward's  arms  seemed  doomed  to 
universal  failure;  nowhere  were  his  prospects 
bright.  By  no  means  the  least  serious  feature 
of  his  position  was  an  empty  treasury.  With 
the  hope  of  devising  the  means  of  changing 
his  fortune,  he  summoned  to  Westminster  for 
the  1st  August  a  Parliament  composed  of  the 
barons  and  prelates  of  the  realm.  The  session 
took  place  on  the  15th  August.  The  bulk  of 
the  debate  was  upon  the  proposal  for  papal 
mediation  between  England  and  France,  and 
no  attempt  was  made  to  raise  money.  But  it 
was  doubtlessly  decided  to  ask  for  a  grant  at 
the  meeting  of  Parliament  intended  for  the 
following  autumn.1 

On  the  four  days  from  the  30th  September 
to  the  3d  October,  Edward  addressed  writs  to 
the  clergy,  the  barons,  and  the  sheriffs,  the 
last  of  whom  were  to  send  up  the  representa- 
tives of  the  counties  and  the  boroughs.  In 
the  writs  to  the  clergy,  by  way  of  preamble 
Edward  said,  "As  a  most  just  law,  established 
by  the  careful  providence  of  sacred  princes, 
exhorts  and  decrees  that  what  affects  all,  by 

i  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  482. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  129 

all  should  be  approved,  so  also,  very  evidently 
should  common  danger  be  met  by  means 
provided  in  common."  l  This  legal  maxim, 
which  had  previously  held  a  place  only  in  the 
minds  of  students  of  the  law,  was  by  this  act 
become  a  most  important  element  in  the 
governmental  practice  of  England.2  The 
writs  provided  not  only  for  the  attendance  of 
the  prelates,  but  also  for  the  sending  up  of 
representatives  of  the  lower  clergy,  —  the 
archdeacons  and  deans  in  person,  a  suitable 
proctor  for  the  chapters,  and  two  others  for  the 
parochial  clergy  of  each  diocese.  All  were 
to  have  "  full  and  sufficient  power  .  .  .  to  con- 
sider, ordain,  and  provide." 

1  "Sicut  lex  justissima,  provida  circumspectione  sacrorum 
principum  stabilita,  hortatur  et  statuit  ut  quod  omnes  tangit 
ab  omnibus  approbetur,  sic  et  nimis  evidenter  ut  communi- 
bus  periculis  per  remedia  provisa  communiter  obvietur.  .  .  . 
Prsemunientes  priorem  et  capitulum  ecclesiae  vestrse,  archi- 
diacones,  totumque  clerum  vestrse  diocesis,  facientes  quod 
iidem  prior  et  archidiaconi  in  propriis  personis  suis,  et  dictum 
capitulum  per  unura,  idemque  clems  per  duos  procurators 
idoneos,  plenam  et  sufficientem  potestatem  ab  ipsis  capitulo 
et    clero    habentes  ...  ad    tractandum,    ordinandum    et 
faciendum.  .  .  ."    Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  484.    Translation  in 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  82. 

2  The  phrase  occurs  in  the  codes  of  Justinian.     Cod.  V, 
lix,  5;  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  200,  note  1. 


130  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  writs  to  the  barons  1  were  similar  in 
tenor  to  the  usual  issuance  upon  such  occa- 
sions. To  the  sheriffs  it  was  "strictly  com- 
manded" that  they  "cause  to  be  elected 
without  delay"  and  sent  up  to  Westminster 
"two  knights  from  the  aforesaid  county,  two 
citizens  from  each  city  in  the  same  county, 
and  two  burgesses  from  each  borough,  of 
those  who  are  especially  discreet  and  capable 
of  acting."  All  were  to  have  "full  and  suffi- 
cient power  for  themselves  and  for  the  com- 
munity of  the  aforesaid  county  .  .  .  and  the 
communities  of  the  aforesaid  cities  and  bor- 
oughs separately,  then  and  there  for  doing 
what  shall  then  be  ordained  according  to 
the  common  counsel  in  the  premises;  so  that 
the  aforesaid  business  shall  not  remain  un- 
finished in  any  way  for  defect  of  this  power."  2 

1  Stubbs,     Set.     Chart.     485.     Translation    Adams    and 
Stephens,  Set.  Doc.  83. 

2  " .  .  .  .     Tibi  praecipimus  firmiter  in jungentes  quod  de 
comitatu    praedicto    duos    milites    et    de    qualibet    civitate 
ejusdem  comitatus  duos  cives,  et  de  quolibet  burgo  duos 
burgenses,  de  discretioribus  et  ad  laboradum  potentioribus, 
sine  dilatione  eligi,  et  eos  ad  nos  ad  praedictos  diem  et  locum 
venire  facias:  ita  quod  dicti  milites  plenam  et  sufficientem 
potestatem  pro  se  et   communitate   comitatus  praedicti,  et 
dicti  cives  et  burgenses  pro  se  et  communitate  civitatum  et 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  131 

The  Parliament,  since  known  as  the  Model  The  Model 
Parliament,  assembled    the    27th  November,  ^J^yj^ 
1295,  in  accordance  with  the  summons  of  the  Nov-» 129S 
king.     Each  of  the  estates  met  by  itself,  and 
each  made  its  grant  to  the  king  independently 
of  the  others.1     The  barons  and  the  knights 
of  the  shire  gave  Edward  an  eleventh  of  then- 
movables,  the  clergy  a  tenth,  and  the  bur- 
gesses and  citizens  a  seventh.2    Here  was  the 
perfect  form  for  the  laying  of  taxes.    In  1283 
the  provincial  councils  at  Northampton  and 
at  York  had  suggested    the   composition  of 
the  Model  Parliament,  but  the  foreshadowed 
form  was  far  from  perfect.    In  1295  the  ques- 
tion was  fully  answered  as  to  how  the  people 

burgorum  praedictorum  divisim  ab  ipsis  tune  ibidem  habeant, 
ad  faciendum  quod  tune  de  communi  consilio  ordinabitur 
in  praemissis;  ita  quod  pro  defectu  hujusmodi  potestatis 
negotium  prsedictum  inf ectum  non  remaneant  quoquo  modo." 
Stubbs,  Sel,  Chart.  486.  Translation  Adams  and  Stephens, 
Sel.  Doc.  83. 

1  In  the  fourteenth  century  the  clergy  ceased  to  act  in  Parlia- 
ment. They  preferred  to  make  their  grants  in  separate  con- 
vocations, and  continued  to  do  so  until  1664  when  they  were 
merged  with  the  other  two  estates.  From  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII,  the  grants  of  the  clergy  were  subject  to  parlia- 
mentary confirmation.  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist. 
201-202. 

*  Earth.  Cotton,  299. 


132  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

should  assent  to  taxation,  in  case  their  assent 
should  be  asked.  The  Model  Parliament 
furnished  the  perfect  mechanism ;  the  question 
was  still  in  the  air,  however,  as  to  whether 
this  mechanism  should  be  the  sole  instrument 
by  which  the  laying  of  taxation  should  be  per- 
formed. 

similar  Events,  however,  were  tripping  one  another 

composi-      up  in  their  haste  to  bring  forward  a  suitable 

liameot  of    answer.    The  Parliament  of  1296,  which  met 

1296  at  Bury  St.  Edmund's  on  the  3d  November, 

clinched  a  precedent  which  should  have  its 

weight  in  making  the  reply.     Its  constitution 

was  precisely  the  same  as  in  1295;  the  barons 

and  knights  gave  a  twelfth  of  their  movables, 

and  the  citizens  and  burghers  an  eighth. 

The  clergy,  however,  held  off.  According 
to  the  understanding  reached  the  previous 
December  when  Edward  accepted  from  them 
a  tenth  in  lieu  of  a  larger  grant,  they  were  to 
meet  a  demand  with  a  further  contribution  of 
like  amount,1  unless  peace  be  declared  in  the  in- 
terval. In  consequence,  Edward  was  scarcely 
ready  to  accept  the  apology  of  Archbishop 
Winchelsey;  the  archbishop  declared  that 

1  Earth.  Cotton,  299. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  133 

should  the  clergy  acquiesce,  the  papal  will  ex- 
pressed in  the  recently  published  bull  "Cleri- 
cis  laicos"  *  would  be  contravened,  and  that 
therefore  no  grant  would  be  forthcoming.  Edward 


He  would  give  his  final  answer  after  meeting 
the  clergy  of  his  province  at  St.  Paul's 
early  in  January,  1297.  When  at  last  his 
reply  was  presented,  it  was  in  tenor  different 
from  that  given  in  November;  the  Pope's 
will  was  clear  and  it  must  hold.  Edward 
moved  swiftly.  Remembering  the  satisfac- 
tory effect  of  his  threat  of  outlawry  in  1294, 
he  immediately  placed  the  clergy  beyond 
the  royal  protection.2  Some  of  the  clergy 
won  back  the  favor  of  the  king  by  making 
individual  contributions  to  the  royal  treasury, 
an  evasion  of  the  terms  of  the  papal  bull 
which  was  quite  acceptable  to  Edward.  On 
the  12th  February,  the  king,  weary  of  waiting 

1  The   bull  "Clericis   lacios,"  published   24th  February, 
1296,  by  Boniface  VIII,  was  levelled  at  the  taxation  of  the 
clergy  by  temporal  powers;  it  prohibited  the  clergy  from  pay- 
ing and  the  secular  powers  from  receiving  contributions  by 
way  of  taxes,  under  pain  of  excommunication.    The  bull  is 
given  in  1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  3,  p.  156,  and  in  Adams 
and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  84,  in  translation. 

2  Earth.  Cotton,  315,  317-319. 


134  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

for  a  favorable  movement  from  Archbishop 
Winchelsey,  ordered  the  seizure  of  the  lay  fees 
of  the  clergy  in  the  see  of  Canterbury,  whereat 
the  archbishop  brought  forward  his  weapon 
of  excommunication.  Thus  did  Edward  find 
disposed  against  himself  and  the  royal  cause 
the  powerful  body  of  English  churchmen,  at 
a  moment  when  their  adherence  would  have 
been  of  vast  advantage. 

The  Scots  had  been  put  down  during  the 
year  1296  and  Baliol  removed  forever  from 
Scotch  territory.  The  momentary  peace  on 
the  borders  made  Edward  feverish  to  avenge 
himself  upon  Philip  of  France,  who  was 
making  free  with  Gascony.  The  trouble 
with  the  church  had  served  to  delay  prepara- 
tions which  might  speedily  have  reached 
completion  upon  the  granting  of  money  at 
the  November  Parliament,  and  Edward  was 
in  no  temper  to  brook  further  interference. 
He  had  formulated  a  plan  of  campaign 
against  the  French  which  provided  not  only 
for  an  expedition  into  Gascony  in  reinforce- 
ment of  the  army  already  there,  but  for  the 
landing  of  a  powerful  force  in  Flanders.  The 
latter  he  intended  to  lead  in  person,  but  the 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  135 

conduct  of  the  Gascon  army  he  hoped  to 
delegate  to  his  barons.  With  the  intention 
of  securing  their  consent  he  called  a  meeting  struggle 

of   the   baronage   at   Salisbury  for   the   24th  ^  *" 

»  barons  over 

February.    Neither  the  clergy  nor  the  knights  service  in 
and  burgesses  were  present.     The  barons  held 
freshly  in  mind  the  recent   opposition  of  the 
clergy  and  they  were  in  no  mood  to  forego  any 
tightening  of  the  royal  bonds  upon  themselves. 

Edward  urged  them  to  go  into  Gascony, 
and  straightway  one  by  one  they  began  to 
make  excuses.  To  the  king,  burning  to  de- 
fend the  English  possessions  abroad  and 
already  overwrought  by  the  long  struggle 
with  the  churchmen,  the  refusal  savored  of 
disloyalty,  and  in  requital  he  threatened  them 
with  forfeiture  of  their  lands.  The  two  great 
earls  Roger  Bigod,  Earl  of  Norfolk  and 
Marshal  of  England,  and  Humfrey  Bohun  of 
Hereford,  the  Constable,  were  quite  as  back- 
ward in  meeting  the  king's  wishes  and  no 
more  favorably  received. 

"With  you,  O  King,"  said  Earl  Roger,  "I 
will  gladly  go:  as  belongs  to  me  by  hereditary 
right,  I  will  go  in  the  front  of  the  host  before 
your  face." 


136  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

"But  without  me,"  Edward  assured,  "you 
will  go  with  the  rest." 

"Without  you,  O  King,"  Earl  Roger  de- 
clared, "I  am  neither  bound  to  go,  nor  will  I." 

"By  God,  Earl,"  swore  the  king,  "You 
shall  either  go  or  hang! " 

"By  the  same  oath,  O  King,  I  will  neither 
go  nor  hang!"  J 

In  these  words  and  on  these  grounds  the 
Earl  Marshal  of  England  refused  to  under- 
take foreign  service,  and  the  Council  scattered. 
Edward,  not  to  be  undone,  straightway  set 
about  preparing  for  an  expedition  independ- 
Seizure  ently  of  his  baronage.  He  laid  hands  upon 
all  the  wool  and  woolfells  of  the  country, 
that  being  the  commodity  most  readily  con- 
vertible into  money,  and  ordered  that  it  be 
carried  to  the  seaports.  In  default  of  obedi- 
ence, this  wool  passed  to  the  crown  by  con- 
fiscation. Every  merchant  who  was  the  pos- 
sessor of  more  than  five  sacks  received  tallies 
from  the  royal  commissioners  which  might 
or  might  not  secure  payment  in  the  future.2 
Those  who  had  less  than  five  sacks  were 

1  Walt,  de  Hemingb.,  121. 

2  Matt.  Westm.,  430,  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  441. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  137 

allowed  to  retain  it  upon  paying  a  toll  of 
forty  shillings  on  the  sack.  Simultaneously, 
Edward  directed  at  every  county  a  demand 
for  2000  quarters  of  wheat,  a  like  quantity  of 
oats,  and  a  supply  of  beef  and  pork.  Whereas 
in  1294  Edward  had  been  able  to  plead  the 
consent  of  the  merchants  to  his  toll  on  wool, 
in  the  present  instance  no  plea  was  possible 
save  the  exigencies  of  the  case,  and  that  was 
no  defense  at  law.  So  Edward,  by  stress  of 
circumstance,  was  obliged  to  forfeit  the  sup- 
port of  a  growing  and  exceedingly  important 
body  of  his  people. 

The  king  determined  to  make  a  final  at- 
tempt to  win  the  barons  from  their  contu- 
macy. For  the  7th  July,  he  summoned  the 
whole  fighting  force  of  the  kingdom  to  Lon- 
don ;  the  assembly  was  to  include  all  who  held 
lands  to  the  annual  value  of  .£20,  no  matter 
what  the  tenure.1  From  these  a  demand  for 
foreign  service  was  obviously  unconstitutional, 
since  they  were  not  immediately  bound  to 
him.  Coupled  with  the  weakness  of  the  king's 
position  was  the  continued  opposition  of 
Bohun  and  Bigod ;  they  and  a  large  number  of 

1 1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  3,  179. 


138  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  other  barons  had  surrounded  themselves 
with  a  force  of  knights  to  the  number  of  fifteen 
hundred,  and,  though  they  were  not  as  yet 
openly  hostile,  they  had  been  able  to  shield 
their  lands  from  the  royal  exactions  of  wool 
and  wheat.1  When  Edward  ordered  the 
Marshal  and  the  Constable  to  perform  their 
offices,  they  refused. 

Thus  it  was  that  Edward  found  himself 
pitted  not  only  against  the  King  of  France, 
but  also  against  the  church,  the  merchant 
class,  and  his  own  baronage.  Of  these  the 
church  showed  itself  most  amenable  to  placa- 
tion.  Edward  restored  to  Archbishop  Win- 
chelsey  the  lands  of  the  see  of  Canterbury 
which  he  had  confiscated.2  To  strengthen 
further  a  position  which  at  best  was  exceed- 
ingly weak,  Edward  made  a  dramatic  attempt 
to  win  over  to  his  cause  the  support  of  the 
people. 

On  the  14th  July,  a  week  after  his  unsuc- 
cessful council  with  the  barons,  he  appeared 

1  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.,  121,  122. 

2  Matt.  Westm.,  430,  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  441.     The 
restitution    of    Winchelsey's    baronies    occurred    after    this 
scene  19th  July,  according  to  Chron.  Cant.  Aug.  Sac.  noted 
in  2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  141. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  139 

on  a  wooden  stage  erected  in  front  of  the  great 
hall  at  Westminster  and  addressed  the  popu- 
lace. He  asked  that  they  forgive  the  harsh- 
ness of  his  acts,  but  reminded  them  that  what 
money  they  had  given  him  had  gone  to  subdue 
enemies  plotting  to  drive  the  English  tongue 
from  the  earth. 

"Behold,"  he  cried,  his  voice  choked  with  Edward's 
tears,  "I  am  going  to  expose  myself  to  dan- 
ger  for  your  sakes;  I  pray  you,  if  I  return, 
receive  me  as  you  have  me  now,  and  I  will 
restore  to  you  all  that  has  been  taken.  But 
if  I  return  not,"  and  at  this  he  brought  for- 
ward his  son,  the  young  Edward,  who  was 
standing  near  him  on  the  platform,  "  crown 
my  son  as  your  king."  l  The  people  threw 
up  their  caps  and  promised  fealty  to  the  king. 
The  archbishop  declared  his  resolve  to  be 
faithful. 

But  neither  the  reconciliation  with  the 
church  nor  the  adherence  of  the  London 
populace  brought  him  money,  and  in  so  far  as 
advantage  was  reckoned  in  terms  of  shillings, 
Edward  was  no  better  off  than  before  his 
council  of  the  7th  July.  He  had  recourse  to 
i  Matt.  Westm.,  430,  in  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  441,  442. 


140  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  old  expedient  of  individual  negotiation. 
He  consulted  in  a  private  audience  the  chief 
men  still  remaining  of  those  who  had  gathered 
for  the  military  levy;  he  assumed  their  ability 
to  grant  taxes  upon  the  analogy  of  a  Parlia- 
ment, an  assumption  scarcely  reasonable  in 
His  view  of  their  depleted  numbers.  Notwith- 

expedients  standing  the  fact  that  Earls  Roger  and  Hum- 
frey  remained  obdurate,  such  of  the  barons 
and  knights  as  were  there  granted  an  eighth 
and  the  citizens  and  burghers  a  fifth,  on  the 
somewhat  hazy  understanding  that  the  king 
should  confirm  the  charters.  Edward  on  the 
30th  July  gave  orders  for  the  collection  of 
the  tax  and  issued  writs  for  the  seizure  of 
8000  sacks  of  wool,  for  which  the  merchants 
received  tallies  as  a  record  of  credit  at  the 
exchequer.1 

Then  he  went  down  to  the  coast  and  pre- 
pared to  embark.  Putting  great  faith  in  the 
continued  support  of  the  people,  he  addressed 
to  them  an  eloquent  plea  for  loyalty  to  the 
crown  as  against  the  barons.  He  spoke  of 
the  exactions  of  money  to  which  they  had  been 
subjected,  and  declared  that,  severe  as  was 

i  Barth.  Cotton,  338;  1  Rot.  Part.  239. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  141 

the  pain  which  had  been  inflicted  upon  the 
people,  equally  great  was  his  own  distress; 
that  the  money  had  been  spent  for  "  le  commun 
profit  du  reaume,  pur  son  pople  honyr  et 
destruyre."  l  The  barons,  on  the  other  hand,  The 
immediately  came  forward  with  a  list  of 

•  grievances 

grievances  which  they  presented  to  the  king, 
complaining,  amongst  other  things,  of  the 
aids,  tallages,  and  prises  which  the  king  had 
lately  levied.  So  afflicted  were  they  with 
"divers  tallages,  aids,  and  prises,'*  such  as 
those  upon  corn,  oats,  malt,  wool,  hides,  oxen, 
kine,  and  salt  meat,  that  it  would  have  been 
impossible  for  them  to  equip  for  any  foreign 
expedition.  More  than  that,  they  could  make 
no  grant  of  an  aid,  because  of  their  great 
poverty  following  the  exaction  of  the  afore- 
said tallages  and  prises;  indeed,  there  were 
"many  who  had  no  sustenance,  and  who 
could  not  till  their  lands."  The  tax  on  wool 
was  much  too  heavy,  no  less  than  40s.  on  the 
sack;  wool  comprised  half  the  wealth  of  the 
nation,  and  the  tax  was  equivalent  to  a  fifth 
part  of  the  value  of  the  whole  land.  Magna 
Carta  and  the  Charter  of  the  Forest  were 

i  Earth.  Cotton,  334. 


142  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

both  disregarded,  and  many  acts  were  done 
in  defiance  of  them.1 

Edward  did  not  return  a  definite  answer; 
the  call  to  war  sounded  too  loudly.     Before  he 
Edward       embarked  he  issued  orders  for  the  collection  of 
f or  "         a  third  of  clerical  temporalities  in  a  most  per- 
Flanders      emptory  manner ;  on  the  10th  August  the  clergy 
had  expressed  hopes  of  being  able  to  gain  the 
Pope's  permission  to  disregard  the  provisions 
of  "  Clericis  laicos,"  but  of  late  they  had  showed 
a  disposition  to  stand  with  the  baronage.    Fi- 
nally, on  the  22d  August,  Edward  succeeded 
in  getting  up  sail  and  made  for  Flanders. 

But  he  could  not  escape  the  issue.  Almost 
before  England  had  sunk  below  his  horizon 
Bohun  and  Bigod  were  at  the  Exchequer 
loudly  protesting  against  the  collection  of  the 
aid  which  had  been  irregularly  granted  to 
Edward  five  weeks  previously.  They  went 
to  the  extreme  of  forbidding  the  Barons  of 
the  Exchequer  to  proceed  with  their  work  of 
taking  the  tax  until  Edward  should  make 
formal  confirmation  of  the  Charters.2  The 

1  W.  Rishanger,  Chron.  175,  in  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  442,  443. 

2  Matt.  Westm.,  430;  W.  Rishanger,  178.    Both  in  Stubbs, 
Set.  Chart.  444. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  143 

Londoners  forgot  their  loyalty  to  the  king, 
and  swore  by  the  earls.  The  young  Prince 
Edward,  afterward  king,  whom  Edward  had 
left  as  his  regent,  tried  to  throw  a  dam  across 
the  swelling  river  by  promising  that  the 
eighth  should  not  be  taken  into  precedent.1 
This  was  published  in  proclamation  on  the 
28th  August,  but  it  availed  nothing.  The 
fifth  which  had  been  asserted  as  owing  from 
the  cities  and  boroughs  was  lost  sight  of. 

Edward,  two  days  before  his  departure  for 
Flanders  had  sent  out  summonses  to  a  number 
of  barons  and  knights  to  meet  his  son  on  the 
8th  September  at  Rochester.  But  before  that 
date  was  reached,  the  necessity  for  a  full  Coun- 
cil was  apparent.  Accordingly,  on  the  8th 
September,  messages  were  sent  out  which 
called  most  of  the  barons  of  the  royal  party; 
on  the  9th,  Archbishop  Winchelsey,  the  Con- 
stable and  the  Marshal,  were  summoned,2 
and  on  the  15th  letters  were  addressed  to  the 
sheriffs  ordering  an  election  of  knights  of 
the  shire.3  No  representatives  of  the  cities 

1 1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  3,  189. 

2  Earth.   Cotton,   336. 

8  1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  3,  190. 


144  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

and  boroughs  or  of  the  inferior  clergy  were 
called. 

The  Parliament  was  summoned  for  the 
octaves  of  St.  Michael  (the  6th  October),  at 
London.  The  great  nobles,  coming  with 
their  train  of  armed  soldiers,  both  foot  and 
horse,  had  command  of  the  situation.1  They 
demanded  that  the  young  regent  confirm 
Magna  Carta  and  the  Charter  of  the  Forest, 
together  with  certain  supplementary  articles. 
Prince  Edward,  acting  on  the  advice  of  his 
councillors,  agreed,  and  straightway  on  the 
Principle  10th  October,  sent  the  Charters  and  the  new 
that  grants  provisions  to  his  father  in  Flanders  for  final 

must  await  r 

redress  of    confirmation.     Nor  was  that  enough.     "The 

earls,"  says  Bishop  Stubbs,  "took  advantage 
of  their  strength  to  force  on  the  government 
the  principle,  which  both  before  and  long 
after  was  a  subject  of  contention  among 
English  statesmen,  that  grievances  must  be 
redressed  before  supplies  are  granted."  2  The 
irregular  and  much  disputed  grant  of  an 
eighth  they  declared  null,  and  in  place  of  it 
they  substituted  a  ninth  from  such  of  the  laity 

1  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  147,  148. 

2  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  147. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  145 

as  were  in  attendance,  a  grant  in  which  the 
towns  subsequently  were  included.  Here 
was  one  of  the  opening  battles  in  the  war 
which  was  to  decide  whether  or  not  Parlia- 
ment, sitting  guardian  of  the  public  purse, 
could  by  reason  of  that  guardianship,  establish 
its  control  over  the  executive  as  well  as  the 
legislative  acts  of  the  nation. 

The  articles  found  the  king  at  Ghent  on  the 
5th  November  and  he  set  his  name  both  to  the 
Charters  and  to  the  provisions  supplementary 
to  them.  The  difficulties  with  the  barons  thus 
concluded,  it  was  not  long  before  the  clerical 
atmosphere  cleared  also.  On  the  20th  Novem-  Confirma- 
ber,  the  clergy,  in  response  to  a  suggestion  from  Barters  e 
Archbishop  Winchelsey,  evading  the  letter  of 
"Clericis  laicos,"  initiated  a  tax  upon  them- 
selves, a  fifth  from  the  northern  province,  and 
a  tenth  from  the  southern.1  The  purpose  of 
the  levy  was  the  defense  of  the  realm  against 
the  Scots  who  had  again  invaded  the  north.2 

1  "Clericis    laicos,"    it    will    be    remembered,    prohibited 
compliance  by  the  clergy  with  demands  by  the  crown  for 
taxation.    It  is  evident  that  a  gift  by  the  clergy  for  the  defense 
of  the  realm,  provided  it  be  not  a  compliant,  but  an  initial 
act,  was  not  a  contravention  of  the  bull. 

2  Earth.  Cotton,  339. 


146  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Edward  I,  when  he  signed  "Confirmatio 
Cartarum,"  in  an  inconclusive  way  handed 
over  to  Parliament  the  right  to  consent  to  all 
taxation  before  it  be  levied;  in  other  words, 
hereafter  Parliament  had  grounds  upon  which 
it  could  contest  arbitrary  exactions  of  the 
crown.  That  the  grounds  for  objection  were 
not  absolute  and  that  Edward  left  a  loophole 
by  which  he  could  escape  will  appear  upon  a 
consideration  of  the  articles  themselves. 

The  first  four  chapters  of  Confirmatio 
Cartarum  have  to  do  with  the  bare  reissuance 
of  the  Charter  of  Henry  III,  and  penalties 
for  their  infraction.  The  fifth  is  more  to  the 
point;  it  provides  that  the  recent  exactions 
shall  not  be  taken  into  precedent  for  future 
taxation.1  The  sixth  chapter  brings  the  issue 

1  "5.  And  for  so  much  as  divers  people  of  our  realm  are  in 
fear  that  the  aids  and  tasks  which  they  have  given  to  us 
beforetime  towards  our  wars  and  other  business,  of  their 
own  grant  and  good  will,  howsoever  they  were  made,  might 
turn  to  be  a  bondage  to  them  and  their  heirs,  because  they 
might  be  at  another  time  found  in  the  rolls,  and  so  likewise 
the  prises  taken  throughout  the  realm  by  our  ministers  in 
our  name;  we  have  granted  for  us  and  our  heirs,  that  we  shall 
not  draw  such  aids,  tasks,  nor  prises  into  a  custom,  for  any- 
thing that  hath  been  done  heretofore,  or  that  may  be  found 
by  roll  or  in  any  other  manner."  Adams  and  Stephens, 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  147 

directly  before  us  and  exhibits  also  the  loop-  The  tax 
hole  by  which  the  king  might  find  his  escape  jjf 
from  it,  if  he  should  have  the  inclination  and 

Cartarum 

the  power  to  do  so.  It  says  that  "for  no  busi- 
ness from  henceforth  we  shall  take  of  our 
realm  such  manner  of  aids,  tasks,  nor  prises, 
but  by  the  common  assent  of  all  the  realm, 
and  for  the  common  profit  thereof,  saving  the 
ancient  aids  and  prises  due  and  accustomed."  * 

Sel.  Doc.  87.  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  495  (French  text)  and  496 
(translation).  Original  in  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  149. 

1  "6.  Moreover  we  have  granted  for  us  and  our  heirs  as 
well  to  archbishops,  bishops,  abbots,  priors,  and  other  folk 
of  holy  Church,  as  also  to  earls,  barons,  and  to  all  the  com- 
monalty of  the  land,  that  for  no  business  from  henceforth  we 
shall  take  of  our  realm  such  manner  of  aids,  tasks,  nor  prises, 
but  by  the  common  assent  of  all  the  realm,  and  for  the  com- 
mon profit  thereof,  saving  the  ancient  aids  and  prises  due  and 
accustomed. 

"And  for  so  much  as  the  mere  part  of  the  commonalty  of 
the  realm  find  themselves  sore  grieved  with  the  maletolt  of 
wools,  that  is  to  wit,  a  toll  of  forty  shillings  for  every  sack  of 
wool,  and  have  made  petition  to  us  to  release  the  same;  we  at 
their  requests  have  clearly  released  it,  and  have  granted 
that  we  will  not  take  such  thing  nor  any  other  without  their 
common  assent  and  good  will ;  saving  to  us  and  our  heirs  the 
custom  of  wools,  skins,  and  leather,  granted  before  by  the 
commonalty  aforesaid.  In  witness  of  which  things  we  have 
caused  these  our  letters  to  be  made  patents."  Adams  and 
Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  87;  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  495  (French  text), 
and  496  (translation). 


148  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  chapter  going  on  in  reference  to  the  evil 
custom  of  forty  shillings  on  every  sack  of  wool, 
commonly  known  as  the  "maletolt,"  says, 
"  We  .  .  .  have  granted  that  we  will  not  take 
such  thing  nor  any  other  without  then'  common 
assent  and  good  will;  saving  to  us  and  our 
heirs  the  custom  of  wools,  skins,  and  leather, 
granted  before  by  the  commonalty  aforesaid." 
The  chapters  are  explicit.  Of  the  two,  the 
sixth  is  of  far  greater  consequence,  both  to 
those  seeking  in  Confirmatio  Cartarum  a 
complete  statement  of  the  right  of  Parliament 
to  exercise  exclusive  control  over  taxation  and 
to  those  looking  for  a  vindication  of  the  royal 
prerogative.  The  fifth  can  be  taken  for  what 
it  was,  a  mere  promise  on  the  part  of  the  king 
not  to  bring  forward  past  wrongs  in  defense 
of  future  ills,  —  a  promise,  the  like  of  which 
was  seldom  of  much  practical  avail.  The 
sixth,  however,  were  it  not  for  two  clauses 
saving  to  the  king  "  the  ancient  aids  and  prises, 
due  and  accustomed,"  and  the  "custom  of 
wools,  skins,  and  leather  granted  before," 
would  have  established  a  tolerably  broad 
basis  for  the  theory  that  royal  control  over 
taxation  underwent  its  legal  death  in  1297. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  149 

The  facts,  however,  that  the  king  could  still 
retain  his  right  to  levy  ancient  aids  and  prises, 
provided  they  were  what  his  ancestors  were 
wont  to  exact;  that  he  could  claim  unques- 
tioned control  over  the  wool-tax  to  the  extent 
of  half  a  mark  on  the  sack;  and  that  nothing 
was  said  at  all  about  his  right  to  tallage  his 
demesne  and  the  city  of  London,  form  a 
sound  backing  for  the  contention  that  not 
only  was  the  royal  power  over  taxation  not 
dead,  but  that  it  was  still  vigorous  and  capable 
of  much  future  activity.  One  might  rightfully 
deduce,  also,  at  least  in  so  far  as  an  explicit 
reading  of  the  text  can  lead  one  to  conclusions, 
that  within  certain  circumscribed  limits,  the 
royal  prerogative  would  be  unquestioned. 

By  implication,  however,  it  is  possible  to 
read  into  Confirmatio  Cartarum  a  different 
significance  than  a  bald  consideration  of  its 
contents  allows.  The  mere  fact  that  the 
nation  had  taken  a  stand  on  the  matter  of 
taxation  marks  the  year  1297  as  of  profound 
importance;  the  fact  that  the  stand  was  not 
conclusive,  that  it  did  not  represent  the  fullest 
advance  possible  at  the  time,  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at.  Furthermore,  the  subsequent 


150  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Parliaments  saw  to  it  that  the  king  observed 
more  than  the  mere  letter  of  the  law,  not- 
withstanding Edward's  evident  aptitude  for 
only  that.  The  case  in  this  respect  was  not 
unlike  the  observance  of  the  omitted  chapters 
of  Magna  Carta;  though  the  written  form  of 
them  had  been  misunderstood  and  unappre- 
ciated, yet  by  the  natural  forces  at  play  be- 
tween king  and  Councils,  the  spirit  of  them 
survived. 
De  taiiagio  The  so-called  Statute  De  tallagio  non  con- 

noncon-      cedendo,  if  it  could  be  taken  at  its  face  value, 
cedendo 

provided  exactly  those  restraints  upon  the 
royal  power  wherein  Confirmatio  Cartarum 
was  wanting.  It  appears  in  the  Chronicle 
of  Walter  of  Hemingburgh  immediately  after 
the  French  text  of  Confirmatio  Cartarum 
under  the  heading  "  Articuli  incerti  in  Magna 
Carta/'  *  "No  tallage  or  aid,"  it  says,  "shall 
be  laid  or  levied  by  us  or  our  heirs  in  our  realm, 
without  the  good  will  and  assent  of  the  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  earls,  barons,  knights,  bur- 
gesses, and  other  freemen  of  our  realm." 2 

1  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  152,  153. 

2  The  statute  is  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  88, 
translated.    The  Latin  text  is  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  497,  498. 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION  151 

Seizure  of  corn,  wool,  and  leather  was  pro- 
vided against,  and  the  maletolt  was  forever 
done  away  with.  Humfrey  Bohun  and  Roger 
Bigod  received  pardon  for  themselves  and 
their  following  for  failing  to  serve  in  the  train 
of  Edward  when  he  went  to  Flanders. 

De  tallagio  non  concedendo  was  denomi- 
nated a  statute  in  the  Petition  of  Right  and 
declared  to  be  such  by  decision  of  the  judges, 
in  the  Hampden  case  in  1637.  In  all  proba- 
bility, however,  it  is  nothing  but  the  Latin 
abstract  of  Confirmatio  Cartarum,  included 
by  Walter  of  Hemingburgh  in  his  narrative 
for  the  greater  convenience  of  the  reader, 
together  with  a  formal  statement  of  the  pardon 
of  the  two  earls.  That  Edward  did  not  feel 
himself  bound  by  the  restrictions  of  the 
"Statute"  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  1304 
he  tallaged  the  towns  and  the  royal  demesne. 
Furthermore,  the  nation  seems  at  the  time 
not  to  have  regarded  the  Chronicler's  articles 
as  law,  for  they  registered  no  complaint 
against  Edward's  tallage.1 

1  In  this  connection  see  McKechnie,  Magna  Carta,  281 ; 
2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  148-150,  and  Set.  Chart.  497; 
Medley,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  507,  508. 


152  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  appearance  of  Confirmatio  Cartarum 
marked  a  stage  in  the  history  of  parliamentary 
taxation.  During  the  reigns  of  Henry  III  and 
Edward,  machinery  was  constructed  which 
could  carry  out  the  chapters  of  Magna  Carta 
providing  for  taxation  by  assent.  The  Parlia- 
ment of  the  three  estates,  assembled  for  the 
purpose  of  meeting  the  pecuniary  necessities 
of  the  king,  proved  itself  to  be  the  easiest  and 
most  effective  means  by  which  the  whole  na- 
tion could  grant  taxes.  But  the  evolution  from 
the  Commune  Concilium,  the  rough  proto- 
type of  Parliament,  had  scarcely  gone  farther 
than  to  supply  a  convenient  instrument  of  tax- 
ation. In  1297  every  tax  did  not  need  the 
assent  of  Parliament  as  the  prerequisite  to 
its  levy;  Confirmatio  Cartarum  was  not  all- 
inclusive.  More  than  that,  the  question  was 
still  undetermined  as  to  whether  the  granting 
of  supplies  should  always  wait  upon  redress  of 
grievances.  If  Parliament  should  maintain 
that  principle  in  practice,  then  its  hold  would 
be  secure  upon  the  executive.  Power  in  1297 
was  not  far  from  a  balance  between  king  and 
nation. 

If  the  evolution  of  a  government  can  ever 


LAW  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION     153 

be  attributed  to  the  directing  skill  of  man 
rather  than  to  the  slow  weaving  of  events, 
the  construction  for  England  of  an  engine 
of  popular  taxation  can  be  ascribed  to  Ed- 
ward Plantagenet,  and  in  less  degree  to  the 
drafter  of  the  working  plan,  Simon  de  Mont- 
fort.  Edward  perceived  the  nation's  problem 
and  adapted  such  means  as  lay  near  his  hand 
to  its  solution.  So  it  was  that  an  assembly, 
not  only  of  the  magnates  of  the  kingdom,  but 
of  elected  knights  of  the  shire,  of  parish  priests 
from  the  inferior  clergy,  of  merchant  citizens 
and  burgesses  from  the  towns,  came  together 
to  provide  in  common  for  the  common  need. 


TAXATION    BY   THE    COMMONS 

1297-1461 

THE  years  subsequent  to  1297  up  to  the  time 
of  the  Tudors  comprise  a  period  of  differen- 
tiation within  Parliament  itself.  Save  for 
the  event  of  the  year  1340,  when  the  statute 
was  passed  which  completed  the  movement 
punctuated  by  Confirmatio  Cartarum,  to  the 
effect  that  every  form  of  taxation  must  have 
the  sanction  of  Parliament  in  order  to  be 
legal,  the  three  centuries  showed  greater 
progress  inside  the  walls  of  Parliament  than 
beyond  them.  Struggles  there  were  in  pleni- 
character  tude  between  king  and  Parliament  to  secure 
0  *  ®  adherence  in  practice  to  the  theory  enunciated 
in  1340,  but  the  great  question  was  that  of 
the  ruling  power  within  Parliament.  It  is 
during  this  period  that  the  Commons  come 
forward  as  the  sole  initiators  of  taxes,  leaving 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  155 

to  the  Lords  merely  the  coordinate  power 
of  consent.  In  close  interrelation  with  this 
monopoly  of  power  over  the  public  purse, 
comes,  in  consequence  of  the  theory  that 
supplies  must  wait  upon  redress  of  grievances, 
the  advance  toward  control  by  the  House  of 
Commons  of  the  entire  machinery  of  govern- 
ment, legislative  and  executive. 

It  is  a  period  of  confusion  and  contra- 
diction. Time  and  again  constitutional  life 
seems  to  be  dead.  War,  disputed  succession 
to  the  crown,  tyranny,  slip-shod  government,  — 
these  and  more  tend  to  make  the  years  1297- 
1461  a  bundle  of  scenes  ill-bound  together. 
The  Wars  of  the  Roses,  the  struggles  with 
France  for  various  causes  and  with  varied 
consequences,  the  doting  of  monarchs  upon 
foreign  favorites,  all  contribute  toward  popu- 
lar distraction  from  that  interest  in  govern- 
ment, that  keen  hostility  to  maladministra- 
tion, which  makes  for  constitutional  progress. 
There  was  no  leader  to  prick  the  public  con- 
science; no  Simon  de  Montfort  or  Edward 
Plantagenet  to  inaugurate  reforms  in  the 
great  matters  of  government. 

When  Edward  I  put  his  name  to  Confirma- 


156  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

tio  Cartarum  at  Ghent,  on  the  5th  November, 
1297,  he  had  still  ten  years  to  live.    In  1301, 
he  re-confirmed  the  Charters  in  a  bill  of  some 
twelve  articles  forced  from  him  by  the  barons 
in  a  manner  which  he  denounced  as  outra- 
geous,  and  thereby  concluded  the  baronial 
conflict.     The  barons  presented  their  claims 
The  Par-     at    the    Parliament    of    Lincoln    which    was 
Lincoln  °     summoned  for  the  20th  January,  1301,  and 
1301  included  amongst  them,  beside  the  plea  for  a 

confirmation  of  the  Charters,  a  demand  for 
the  enforcement  of  general  reforms,  this  last 
to  be  the  prerequisite  for  a  grant  of  money.  A 
fifteenth  of  all  movables  was  then  voted  to 
the  king,  to  be  paid  upon  the  completion  of 
the  reforms,  the  date  proposed  being  Michael- 
mas next  coming.1  The  clergy,  who  still  pro- 
fessed adherence  to  the  bull  "Clericis  laicos," 
with  the  approval  of  the  baronage  averred  that 
they  could  not  acquiesce  in  any  grant  of  money 
in  the  face  of  papal  prohibition.  Edward,  in 
his  reply  to  the  claims  made  by  the  barons, 
declared  his  unwillingness  to  admit  the  va- 
lidity of  the  assertion  that  papal  consent  was 
necessary  to  the  clerical  grant.  His  confirma- 

i  Patent  Rolls,  24th  Oct.,  1301,  in  Stubbs,  Set.  Chart.  446. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  157 

tion  of  the  Charters  was  dated  14th  February, 
1301.1 

Edward's  last  years  were  years  of  financial 
difficulty.  In  1302  at  the  Parliament  held 
on  the  1st  July,  at  London,  he  received  from 
the  lay  estates  and  the  clergy  a  fifteenth  of  tem- 
poral goods.2  The  same  year  saw  him  turn 
back  to  the  aid  pur  file  marier  which  the  Edward's 
barons  had  granted  twelve  years  previously  in  exped^ents 
June,  1290;  and  in  1303  he  attempted  to  ob- 
tain the  consent  of  the  merchants  to  an  increase 
in  the  custom  on  wine,  wool,  and  merchandise. 
He  called  a  meeting  at  York,  quite  irregular 
in  its  constitutional  aspect,  and  presented  the 
matter  for  its  consideration.  The  merchants 
would  not  listen  to  the  plea  and  the  matter, 
as  far  as  denizens  were  concerned,  was 
dropped.3  Five  months  previously,  on  the 
1st  February,  Edward  had  had  better  fortune 
in  a  similar  effort  with  the  foreign  merchants. 
On  the  principle  that  the  crown  had  the  right 
to  close  the  ports  to  merchant  strangers, 

1  See  2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  156-158,  citing  1  Parlia- 
mentary Writs,  104. 

2  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  223. 

» 1  Parl.  Writs,  134-135,  in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  500-501. 


158 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


Tunnage 


other  cus- 

toms 


Edward  entered  into  negotiation  with  the 
leading  men  amongst  them,  and  in  return 
for  a  grant  of  all  the  privileges  and  liberties 
essential  to  them,  they  agreed  to  a  fifty  per 
cent,  increase  over  the  rates  paid  upon  wools 
and  leather  by  English-born  merchants.  Be- 
side  these  were  new  duties  upon  other  commod- 
&ies,  whether  they  be  exported  or  imported: 
wine,  &?.  on  the  tun,  a  custom  which  was  to 

•  i         i 

achieve  notoriety  under  the  name  of  tunnage; 

cloth,  from  Is.  to  2s.  on  the  piece  depending 
upon  the  dye;  general  merchandise,  3d.  in 
the  pound  of  20s.,  subsequently  called  pound- 
age; and  wax,  Is.  per  quintal.1  This  agree- 
ment between  king  and  merchants,  known  by 
the  title  "  Carta  Mercatoria,"  was  not  technic- 
ally in  contravention  of  Confirmatio  Cartarum, 
notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  the  latter 
against  the  levying  without  national  consent 
of  any  but  the  "ancient  prises"  and  the  cus- 
tom on  wool  previously  granted.  Confirmatio 
Cartarum  was  a  grant  to  Englishmen  and  to 
Edward's  sharply  legal  mind,  its  liberties  did 
not  extend  to  foreigners,  however  closely  knit 


1  Carta  Mercatoria,  in  Hall,  1  History  of  the  Customs,  Appen- 
dix, 202-208;  1  ibid.  69-70. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  159 

their  relations  might  be  with  the  king's  own 
people. 

In  1304  Edward  took  from  the  demesne 
cities  and  boroughs  and  the  royal  demesne 
a  sixth  of  movables.1  The  records  of  the 
Parliament  of  1305,  far  from  noting  any  Tallage, 
complaint  against  the  king's  tallage,  contain  1304 
this  memorandum:  "To  the  petition  of  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  prelates,  earls,  barons,  and 
other  good  men  of  the  land,  praying  that  the 
king  wills  to  grant  them  the  power  to  tallage 
then*  ancient  demesne  .  .  .  even  as  the  king 
has  tallaged  his  demesne,  it  was  answered, 
'Let  it  be  as  petitioned.'  "  2  This  is  all  but 
final  evidence  against  the  validity  of  De  tallagio 
non  concedendo.3 

The   great   Edward   died   at   Burgh-upon- 
Sands  on  Friday,  the  7th  July,  1307,  and  the 
sceptre  fell  into  the  nerveless  hand  of  Edward  Edward  n, 
II.    The  new  king  did  not  inherit  his  father's  1307-1327 

1  2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  233;  Patent  Rolls,  a.  1304,  6th  Feb., 
in  Stubbs,  Sel.  Chart.  447. 

2  1  Rot.  Pad.  161-162. 

3  The  only  other  instance  of  taxation  to  be  noted  was  the 
aid  granted  in  1306  by  knights  and  barons  (a  thirtieth),  and 
by  citizens  and  burgesses  (a  twentieth),  on  the  occasion  of 
knighting  the  king's  son.     1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  4,  48. 


160  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

great  attributes  nor  his  good  fortune;  he  was 
improvident  and  unperceptive,  the  faithful 
dupe  of  advantage-seeking  associates,  the  lav- 
ish spender  of  money  he  did  not  have,  the 
chief  enemy  of  himself.  At  last,  when  he 
had  reigned  some  twenty  years,  he  was  put 
down  and  his  son  succeeded  in  his  stead.  Ed- 
ward IFs  accession  was  undisputed;  at  Car- 
lisle, on  the  20th  July,  he  received  the  homage 
and  fealty  of  the  English  baronage,  and  six 
months  later  on  the  25th  February,  1308,  he 
was  crowned.  The  coronation  oath  he  was 
obliged  to  take  in  French,  not  being  familiar 
with  the  Latin  tongue.  The  oath  was  more 
than  usually  stringent;  the  last  of  the  four 
promises  required  of  the  king  was  this: 
"Sire,  do  you  grant  to  hold  and  to  keep  the 
laws  and  righteous  customs  which  the  com- 
munity of  your  realm  shall  have  chosen, 
and  will  you  defend  and  strengthen  them  to 
the  honor  of  God,  to  the  utmost  of  your 
power?"  Edward  answered,  "I  grant  and 
promise."  1 

Edwaid  did  not  call  a  Parliament  between 

1 1  Rymer,  Foedera,  part  4,  112.    Also,  Stubbs,  2  Const. 
Hist.  Eng.  331. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  161 

October  1307,  and  April  1309.1  He  was  in 
fear,  apparently,  of  an  attack  upon  his  foreign 
favorite,  Piers  Gaveston,  and  was  desirous 
of  shielding  him,  as  Charles  I  attempted  to 
shield  Buckingham  three  centuries  later,  by 
doing  without  a  Parliament.  The  only  merit 
of  the  favorite  seems  to  have  been  the  deep, 
and  in  its  consequences  the  pathetic  love  with 
which  he  inspired  the  young  monarch.  He 
was  self-seeking,  avaricious,  willful,  and  capa- 
ble of  exercising  a  domination  over  the  king 
as  complete  as  it  was  profitable  to  himself.  At 
last,  however,  the  loans,  which  his  Italian 
bankers,  the  Friscobaldi  had  supplied  Edward, 
withered  away  and  he  was  obliged  to  issue 
a  summons  to  a  Parliament. 

Parliament  met  on  the  27th  April,  1309, 
with  a  full  attendance  of  clergy,  lords,  knights 
and  burgesses.  In  response  to  Edward's 
urgent  request  for  funds,  the  lords,  burgesses 
and  knights  granted  him  a  meagre  twenty- 
fifth,  but  only  on  condition  of  a  redress  of 

1 A  Parliament  of  the  three  Estates  at  Northampton, 
13th  Oct.,  1307,  granted  him  an  aid  on  the  event  of  his  mar- 
riage and  coronation,  and  for  the  burial  of  Edward  I.  The 
clergy  granted  a  fifteenth,  the  towns  a  fifteenth,  and  the 
barons  and  knights  a  twentieth  of  movables.  1  Rot.  Parl.  442. 


162  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

grievances,  these  being  detailed  in  a  sched- 
ule of  eleven  articles.1  Two  of  the  eleven 
have  to  do  with  taxation ;  the  first  was  directed 
at  the  abuses  of  purveyance;  the  second  hit 
more  nearly,  having  to  do  with  the  New 
Customs  which  Edward  I  had  provided  for 
in  the  Carta  Mercatoria  of  1303.2  "And  as 
to  the  customs  which  the  king  taketh  by  his 
officers  — ,"  so  goes  the  memorandum  in  the 
Tentative  Rolls,  "that  is  to  say,  of  every  tun  of  wine, 
the  New  °  *wo  sm^ungsJ  °f  every  cloth  which  alien  mer- 
Customs  chants  bring  into  his  land,  two  shillings;  and 
of  every  pound  value  of  avoir  de  pois,  three 
pence  —  the  king  willeth  at  the  request  of  the 
said  good  people  that  the  said  customs  of  wines, 
clothes,  and  avoir  de  pois,  do  cease  at  his  will, 
in  order  to  know  and  be  advised  what  profit 
and  advantage  will  accrue  to  him  and  his 
people  by  ceasing  the  taking  of  those  customs; 
and  the  king  will  have  counsel  according  to 
the  advantage  which  he  shall  see  therein:  sav- 
ing always  to  the  king  the  ancient  prises  and 
customs  anciently  due  and  approved."  The 

*  1  Rot.  Parl.  443-445. 

*  The  second  article  is  given  in  translation  in  Hall,  1  History 
of  the  Customs,  Appendix,  208. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  163 

king  gave  orders  that  the  conditional  grant  of 
the  twenty-fifth  be  collected. 

The  trouble  over  Gaveston,  however,  was 
not  settled,  and  he  became  increasingly  worri- 
some to  the  barons.  Furthermore  the  customs 
were  collected  not  by  Englishmen  but  by 
Edward's  Italian  bankers.  In  March  1310,  The 
meeting  in  council,  the  barons  drew  up  a  peti- 


tion  praying  against  the  impoverishment  of  1309-ian 
the  exchequer  despite  grants  of  money;  the 
king,  so  they  said,  was  still  exacting  prises 
and  living  by  purveyance  contrary  to  the  en- 
gagement of  1309.  Edward,  still  hoping  to 
shield  Gaveston,  assented  to  the  election  of 
a  commission  of  twenty-one,  known  as  the 
Lords  Ordainers,  who  exercised  his  authority 
for  the  space  of  a  year  and  a  half. 

The  Lords  Ordainers,  recalling  in  their  com- 
position and  purposes  those  who  put  forward 
the  scheme  of  reform  in  the  Provisions  of  Ox- 
ford of  1255,  proceeded  to  promulgate  ordi- 
nances for  the  correction  of  abuses.  On  the 
2d  August,  1310,  six  ordinances  were  made 
public  and  received  the  confirmation  of  the 
king.1  By  the  fourth,  it  was  ordained  "  that 

i  1  Rot.  Parl  446^147. 


164  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  customs  of  the  realm  be  kept  and  received 
by  people  of  the  realm,  and  not  by  aliens ;  and 
that  the  issues  and  profits  of  the  same  customs, 
together  with  all  other  issues  and  profits  of 
the  realm  arising  from  any  matters  whatso- 
ever, shall  come  entirely  to  the  King's  ex- 
chequer, ...  to  maintain  the  household  of 
the  king,  and  otherwise  to  his  profit,  so  that 
,  the  king  may  live  of  his  own,  without  taking 
prises  other  than  those  anciently  due  and 
accustomed;  and  all  others  shall  cease."  * 
Despite  the  apparent  inclusion  of  the  "New 
Customs"  within  the  meaning  of  this  ordi- 
nance, their  resumption  was  ordered  the  same 
day,  on  the  ground  that  during  the  period  of 
their  prohibition,  prices  had  not  been  re- 
duced.2 

Parliament  met  on  the  8th  August,  1311, 
to  receive  the  final  report  of  the  Ordainers, 
and  sat  for  two  months.     Thirty-five  addi- 
tional articles  were  drawn  up  in  Parliament.3 
New  jjy  the  tenth  article  new  prises  are  to  be  abol- 

Customs        . 

abolished     ished,  and  by  the  eleventh  the  New  Customs 

1  Translation  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  93. 

2  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  840,  note  1,  and  citations. 
»  1  Rot.  Parl  281-286. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  165 

are  done  away  with  in  their  entirety.  "New 
customs  have  been  levied,"  says  the  ordinance, 
"and  the  old  enhanced,  as  upon  wools,  cloths, 
wines,  avoir  de  pois,  and  other  things,  whereby 
the  merchants  come  more  seldom,  and  bring 
fewer  good  into  the  land,  and  the  foreign  mer- 
chants abide  longer  than  they  were  wont  to  do, 
by  which  abiding  things  become  more  dear 
than  they  were  wont  to  be,  to  the  damage  of 
the  king  and  his  people;  we  do  ordain  that 
all  manner  of  customs  and  imposts  levied 
since  the  coronation  of  King  Edward,  son  of 
King  Henry,  be  entirely  put  out,  and  alto- 
gether extinguished  for  ever,  notwithstanding 
the  charter  which  the  said  King  Edward  made 
to  the  merchant  aliens,  because  the  same  was 
made  contrary  to  the  Great  Charter  .  .  ., 
saving  nevertheless  to  the  king  the  customs 
of  wools,  woolfells,  and  leather;  that  is  to  say, 
for  each  sack  of  wool,  half  a  mark,  and  for 
three  hundred  woolfells,  half  a  mark,  and  for 
a  last  of  leather,  one  mark  .  .  .,  and  hence- 
forth merchant  strangers  shall  come,  abide,  and 
go  according  to  the  ancient  customs.  .  .  ."  1 
On  the  9th  October,  the  day  upon  which  Par- 
1  Translation  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  93-94. 


166  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

liament  rose,  the  order  went  out  which  made 
the  ordinance  effective.1 
Banish-  Gaveston,  the  hated  favorite,  whose  corrup- 

Gaveston  ^on  anc^  ac^s  °^  °PPressi°n  nad  furnished  the 
immediate  cause  for  the  reform  movement, 
was  amply  provided  for.  He  was  put  under 
sentence  of  perpetual  banishment  and  in 
order  to  safeguard  themselves  against  the 
return  to  power  of  him  and  his  kind,  the 
barons  reiterated  the  demand  made  in  1244, 
that  the  appointment  of  ministers  be  subject 
in  the  future  to  their  council  and  consent.2 
The  king  gave  his  assent  to  the  ordinances  on 
the  30th  September  and  two  weeks  later  they 
went  out  to  the  sheriffs  for  publication. 

The  Parliament  which  met  in  1312  granted 
Edward  no  money.  His  position  was  desperate 
and  he  turned  everywhere  in  the  hope  that  he 
could  raise  funds  wherewith  to  meet  his  neces- 
sities; the  merchants  and  the  clergy,  even  the 

1  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  345  and  note  2,  with  citations. 

'Edward,  despite  the  ordinance  banishing  Gaveston,  in 
January,  1312,  recalled  him.  But  the  restoration  was  fatal  to 
the  favorite.  Thomas  of  Lancaster  intercepted  him  on  his 
way  back  to  London  and  murdered  him.  Gaveston  was 
avenged,  however,  in  1322,  when  Edward  for  the  moment 
securing  the  upper  hand,  took  Lancaster  and  beheaded  him. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  167 

Pope,  were  induced  to  lend  him  money.    But 
they  could  not  satisfy  his  needs;  therefore  in 
December,  1312,  the  Council  determined  to  Taiiage  of 
levy  a  tallage  on  the  demesne  towns  and  the 


royal  demesne  of  a  fifteenth  of  movables  and  London 
a  tenth  of  rents.1  The  imposition  met  with 
opposition,  resistance  being  most  riotous  in 
London  and  Bristol.  The  objections  which 
the  people  of  Bristol  raised  were  not  based 
upon  legal  grounds;  it  so  happened  that  at 
the  moment  certain  of  their  burgesses  were 
confined  in  the  Tower  of  London,  and  that 
grievance,  so  they  maintained,  warranted  their 
refusal.  The  basis  for  resistance  raised  by 
the  citizens  of  London  was  not  so  casual;  they 
claimed  immunity  from  a  royal  tallage  on 
the  ground  of  the  "ancient  privileges"  guar- 
anteed to  them  under  Magna  Carta.  Neither 
cited  De  tallagio  non  concedendo  as  the  defense 
of  their  actions,  and  the  presumption  against 
the  validity  of  the  so-called  statute  is  therefore 
enhanced.  The  king  secured  his  payment  by 
way  of  compromise;  the  Londoners  granted  a 
"loan"  of  £400  and  another  of  £1000,  from 
which  sums  they  were  to  be  relieved  at  the 

i  1  Rot.  Part.  449. 


168  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

time  of  collection  of  the  next  general  aid. 
Many  other  towns  escaped  upon  the  ground 
that  they  were  not  situated  within  the  royal 
demesne.  The  principle  that  the  king  could 
levy  tallages  upon  his  own  demesne  thus 
remained  unquestioned;  but  no  tallage  was 
levied  during  the  rest  of  this  reign.1 

It  is  unnecessary  to  follow  Edward  II  to 

1  Other  instances  of  taxation  during  the  reign  were:  1313, 
October.  Parliament  grants  a  tax  on  movables,  —  the  barons 
and  knights  a  twentieth  and  the  towns  a  fifteenth.  Grant 
made  in  consequence  of  a  general  pardon  issued  by  Edward. 

1  Rot.  Parl.  448.    Cf.  Thorn.  Walsingham,  Hist.  Anglicana, 
ed.  1  Riley,  136.    1315,  Jan.-March.    King  put  on  an  allow- 
ance of  £10  a  day.    The  clergy  grant  a  tenth  on  certain  condi- 
tions, the  towns  a  fifteenth  and  the  barons  and  knights  a 
twentieth.     2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  355,  and  citations. 
1316.  Towns  grant  a  fifteenth,  the  knights  and  barons  offer 
a  soldier  to  be  supported  by  each  township,  and  the  clergy 
express  their  willingness  to  contribute  a  tenth  in  their  own 
convocations.     1  Rot.  Parl.  450-451.     2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist. 
Eng.  356.    The  grant  of  a  soldier  was  afterward  compounded 
for  by  a  grant  of  a  sixteenth.  1319.    The  towns  grant  a  twelfth, 
the  barons  and  knights  an  eighteenth.    1  Rot.  Parl.  454—455. 
1320.  No  taxes,  save  a  clerical  tenth,  granted  by  the  Pope. 

2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  363,  note  2.    1322.    Clergy  grant  a 
tenth  for  2  years.    Knights  and  barons  grant  a  man-at-arms 
from  each  township  for  40  days.    Commuted  by  money  pay- 
ment.   Edward,  being  for  the  moment  supreme,  restores  the 
New  Customs  for  a  year.    2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  370, 
and  note  2  and  authorities  there  cited. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  169 

his  melancholy  end.  His  deposition  came  Deposition 
more  as  the  result  of  stress  in  his  own  house-  J^JJ "n 
hold  than  because  of  any  strain  which  he  put 
upon  the  constitution.  Favorites,  an  unfaith- 
ful wife,  and  factions  which  he  bred  among 
his  barons,  did  more  to  bring  about  his  de- 
thronement and  his  subsequent  murder  than 
any  condition  of  taxation.  In  the  list  of 
grievances  which  Bishop  Stratford  drew  up  as 
furnishing  cause  sufficient  for  the  overthrow 
of  Edward,  nothing  appears  which  has  any 
connection  with  the  question  of  taxation, 
much  less  any  assertion  of  parliamentary  right 
to  control  it.  The  king  consented  to  the 
election  of  his  son  in  his  stead  on  January  20, 
1327.  Eight  months  thereafter  he  died;  few 
doubt  that  he  was  murdered. 

The  reign  of  Edward  III  dates  from  the 
24th  January,  1327.     He  was  crowned  five  Edward  ni, 
days  later  at  the  age  of  fourteen  and  took  the  1327~1377 
same  stringent  oath  as  that  which  had  failed 
to  bind  his  father.     Parliament  appointed  a 
council  of  government  which  was  to  be  in 
constant  attendance  upon  the  king;  but  the 
queen  and  her  familiar,  Mortimer,  assumed 
so  dominant  a  control  over  the  young  king 


170  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

that  the  influence  of  the  Council  was  nil. 
Edward  went  through  the  formality  of  con- 
firming the  charters  and  forbidding  illegal 
assessment  of  aids.  His  rule  really  did  not 
begin  until  November,  1330,  when  Mortimer 
was  killed. 

Edward  III,  being  no  statesman,  but  a 
warrior,  energetic,  without  scruple,  lavish, 
and  ambitious,  was  not  a  figure  designed  to 
loom  large  in  constitutional  history.  He  did 
not  mould  events  as  did  his  grandfather;  he 
watched  them  move.  As  a  matter  of  fact  there 
was  advance.  Tallage  was  prohibited  and 
there  came,  too,  the  abolition  in  law  of  other 
forms  of  arbitrary  taxation. 

Edward  had  in  mind  in  1332  the  reduction 
of  Scotland.1  To  that  end  he  revived  a  finan- 
cial expedient  which  had  not  been  exercised 
since  his  father's  embarrassment  in  1312,  and 
tallaged  the  demesne  cities  and  boroughs,  and 
Tallage  of  the  rural  demesne.  On  the  25th  June,  he 

1332  an       gen|.  Quj.  orc[ers  for  fche  collection  of  a  four- 
its  with- 
drawal        teenth    of   movables   and  a   ninth  of   rents.2 

1  Sept.  1327.    Parliament  at  Lincoln  granted  a  twentieth 
for  the  Scotch  war.    2  Rot .  Parl.  425. 

2  2  Ibid.  446. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  171 

Parliament  met  three  months  later,  on  the 
9th  September,  and  a  request  formulated  by 
the  prelates,  earls,  barons,  and  the  knights 
of  the  shires,  was  addressed  to  the  king  pray- 
ing the  recall  of  the  commission  for  the 
tallage;  Parliament  offered  as  a  substitute  a 
fifteenth  from  the  shires  and  a  tenth  from 
the  towns.  Just  why  a  Parliament  in  which 
the  Rolls  do  not  note  the  inclusion  of  the 
burgesses  should  accomplish  such  a  substitu- 
tion, which  obviously  benefited  the  townsmen, 
is  not  clear,  unless  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
knights  dwelt  within  the  royal  demesne  or  in 
small  towns  formerly  subjected  to  the  exaction 
of  tallage.  In  his  acceptance  of  the  grant 
Edward  promised  for  the  future  that  he  would 
not  lay  such  a  tallage,  "  Except  as  was  cus- 
tomary in  the  time  of  our  ancestors,  and  as 
he  might  rightly  do." *  It  was  not,  however, 
until  the  sweeping  legislation  of  1340  that  tal- 
lage became  illegal. 

In  parallel  to   the  struggle  against   tallag- 

ing  the  royal  demesne  was  the  contest  with 

the    king   in   the    matter   of    the    custom   on 

wool.     Edward  in   1328  confirmed  the  rees- 

i  2  Ibid.  66. 


172  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

New  tablished  scale  of  1322  which  his  father  in  his 

become  a     hour  of  supremacy  had  laid  upon  the  alien 
regular        merchants,  in   amount   equal   to   the   "nova 

means  of 

revenue  custuma"  of  Edward  I.  From  this  time  the 
New  Customs  became  a  part  of  the  regular 
revenue  of  the  crown,  though  Parliament  did 
not  yield  its  sanction  until  a  time  some  fifty 
years  after  the  first  levy,  when,  in  1353,  it 
gave  its  assent  to  the  Statute  of  Staples. 

But  the  regulation  of  the  relations  between 
king  and  merchant  denizens,  and  incidentally 
through  them,  his  relations  (aside  from  the 
New  Customs)  with  the  aliens,  is  not  so 
briefly  told.  Throughout  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward III  the  question  was  being  quietly  fought 
out  as  to  whether  or  not  the  king  might  tamper 
with  the  wool  customs  irrespective  of  parlia- 
mentary sanction.  In  1332  Edward  issued 
an  ordinance  which  provided  for  the  collec- 
tion of  a  subsidy  on  the  wool  of  denizens ;  the 
rate  was  to  be  half  a  mark  on  the  sack  and  300 
woolfells,  and  twenty  shillings  on  the  last  of 
leather.  A  year  later  on  the  30th  June,  1333, 
Edward  recalled  his  ordinance,  but  he  did  not 
relinquish  his  grasp  upon  the  customs;  by 
negotiation  with  the  merchants,  he  received 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  173 

ten  shillings  on  the  sack  and  300  woolfells 
and  a  pound  on  the  last.  In  order  to  bolster 
up  the  legality  of  the  proceeding,  he  issued 
a  royal  ordinance  to  the  same  effect.1 

In  August  of  the  year  1336,  when  the  king's  The  wool 
arms  were  meeting  with  great  success  on  the  customs 
northern  border,  Edward,  confident  in  his 
popularity,  sent  out  royal  letters  forbidding 
the  export  of  wool.2  Parliament  met  at  Not- 
tingham the  following  month  full  of  pride 
in  the  military  prowess  of  the  king,  and 
granted  him  liberal  aids.  Not  only  did  the 
barons  and  knights  contribute  a  twentieth, 
the  towns  a  tenth,  the  clergy  a  sixth,  but  the 
merchants,  who  were  at  this  moment,  so  it 
appeared,  on  the  verge  of  attaining  to  the 
dignity  of  a  fourth  estate  in  Parliament, 
granted  him  forty  shillings  on  the  sack  of 
wool;  and  the  foreign  merchants  were  to  pay 
an  additional  twenty  shillings.3  In  the  hope 
that  its  action  would  encourage  the  domestic 
manufacture  of  cloth,  Parliament  in  March, 
1337,  passed  a  statute  forbidding  the  exporta- 

1  2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  554. 

2  2  Rymer,  Foedera,  Aug.  12,  1336. 

3  1  Hen.  Knighton,  Ckronicon,  ed.  Lumby,  477. 


174  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

tion  of  wool,  and  offering  foreign  operatives 
special  inducements  to  settle  in  England.1  The 
embargo  was  to  continue  until  the  king  and  his 
Council  should  decide  otherwise.  Thus  em- 
powered, Edward  and  his  Council  issued  an 
ordinance  imposing  upon  denizens  a  custom 
of  ,£2  on  the  sack  and  on  300  woolfells,  and  £3 
on  the  last  of  leather;  the  unfortunate  aliens 
were  to  pay  double.2 

The  effect  upon  the  people  was  immediate; 
unable  to  sympathize  with  the  project  of 
importing  skilled  labor  and  seeing  only  the 
curtailment  in  profits  normally  accruing  from 
their  chief  article  of  export,  they  were  led 
almost  to  the  point  of  revolt.  The  Parliament 
which  met  in  September  1339,  in  answer  to 
the  general  cry  for  reform,  brought  forward 
measures  aimed  to  allay  the  popular  irrita- 
tion. The  barons  made  the  curious  grant  of 
"the  tenth  sheaf,  the  tenth  lamb,  and  the 
tenth  fleece,  payable  in  two  years,"  and  they 
"willed  that  the  maletolt  of  wool  lately 

1  Adam  Murimuth.,  Chronica  ed.  Hog,  81. 

32  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  398,  555,  with  authorities 
there  cited.  The  statute  is  given  in  1  Hall,  Hist,  of  Customs, 
210-211. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  175 

levied  afresh,  be  entirely  removed  and  held 
to  the  old  rate."  1  The  knights  and  burgesses, 
questioning  their  ability  to  grant  money  to 
the  king  without  first  consulting  their  constitu- 
ents, desired  the  matter  deferred  to  a  subse- 
quent Parliament.  They  mentioned  six  griev- 
ances upon  which  they  demanded  redress. 
They  asked  release  from  the  customary  aids 
and  prises,  and  "  that  the  maletolt  of  wool  and 
lead  be  taken  as  of  old,  for  that  the  same 
is  now  increased  without  the  assent  of  Parlia- 
ment." 2  The  new  Parliament,  in  accordance^ 
with  the  will  of  the  knights  and  burgesses, 
was  summoned  for  the  20th  January,  1340. 

At  this  session  no  new  legislation  was  under- 
taken. Edward  was  abroad  and  his  absence 
discouraged  the  members  from  enunciating 
new  principles.  They  showed  themselves, 
however,  sympathetic  with  the  royal  necessi- 
ties. The  lords  again  offered  the  tenth  sheaf, 
the  tenth  fleece,  and  the  tenth  lamb;  the  com- 
mons granted  30,000  sacks  of  wool,  on  the 
condition  of  the  royal  acceptance  of  certain 
articles  drawn  by  them,  and  in  case  their 

»  2  Rot.  Parl.  104. 
2  2  Ibid.  105. 


176  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

reforms  were  not  favored  by  the  king,  they 
made  a  free  gift  of  2500  sacks  of  wool.1 
Edward  called  a  new  Parliament  which  met 
the  29th  March,  there  being  in  attendance  a 
large  body  of  merchants.  The  prelates,  barons, 
and  knights  made  a  gift  of  the  ninth  sheaf, 
fleece,  and  lamb  in  complement  to  the  baronial 
tenth  of  the  previous  January,  and  the  towns 
gave  a  ninth  of  movables ;  a  fifteenth  from  the 
rest  of  the  nation,  such  as  had  no  wool  and  yet 
were  not  townsfolk,  completed  the  grant,  save 
for  a  custom  on  each  sack  of  wool,  on  every 
300  woolfells,  and  on  every  last  of  leather, 
of  forty  shillings.2  But  the  gifts  were  con- 
ditional; the  king  was  to  accept  the  articles 
prepared  by  the  commons.  Being  amenable 
to  their  will,  he  referred  the  petitions  to  a 
committee,  part  of  which  was  selected  by  the 
commons  themselves,  with  the  understanding 
that  it  should  draw  up  statutes  embracing 
such  of  the  matters  prayed  for  as  were  of  a 
permanent  character. 

The  first  statute  met  the  demands  of  1339. 
"And  for  this  grant,"  it  says,  speaking  of  the 

1  2  Rot.  Parl.  107-108. 

2  2  Ibid.  112-113.   2  Walt,  de  Hemingb.  354. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  177 

liberal  wool  subsidy  mentioned  above,  "the  statutory 
king   by    the    assent    of   the   prelates,    earls,  *fftg°r 
barons,  and  all  others  assembled  in  Parlia-  maietoit 
ment,  hath  granted,  that  from  the  feast  of  unauthor- 
Pentecost  that  cometh  in  a  year,  he  nor  his  "ed  taxa" 

J  tion 

heirs  shall  not  demand,  assess,  nor  take,  nor 
suffer  to  be  taken  more  custom  of  a  sack  of 
wool  of  any  Englishman  but  half  a  mark  of 
custom  only;  and  upon  woolfells  and  leather 
the  old  custom.  .  .  .  And  this  establishment 
lawfully  to  be  holden  and  kept,  the  king  hath 
promised  in  the  presence  of  the  prelates,  earls, 
barons,  and  others  in  his  Parliament,  no  more 
to  charge,  set,  or  assess,  upon  the  custom, 
but  in  the  manner  as  afore  is  said."  * 

The  second  statute  was  still  more  sweeping: 
"We  .  .  .  will  and  grant  for  us  and  our  heirs, 
to  the  same  prelates,  earls,  barons,  and  com- 
mons, citizens,  burgesses,  and  merchants  .  .  . 
that  they  be"  not  "from  henceforth  charged 
nor  grieved  to  make  common  aid,  or  to  sus- 
tain charge,  if  it  be  not  by  the  common  assent 
of  the  prelates,  earls,  barons,  and  other  great 
men,  and  commons  of  our  said  realm  of 

1 14  Edw.  Ill,  1,  in  1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  281,  and  in 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  103-104. 


178  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

England,  and  that  in  the  Parliament;  and 
that  all  the  profits  rising  from  the  said  aid, 
and  of  the  wards  and  marriages,  customs, 
and  escheats,  and  other  profits  rising  of  the 
said  realm  of  England,  shall  be  put  and 
spent  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  safe- 
guard of  our  said  realm  of  England  and  of 
our  wars.  .  .  ."  * 

The  importance  of  these  two  acts  is  readily 
apparent.  The  promise  of  Edward  to  abide 
by  the  recommendation  of  Parliament  in  the 
matter  of  the  subsidy  on  wool,  was  an  admis- 
sion by  the  king  that  not  he  but  they  had 
final  control  over  the  laying  of  customs  duties. 
Thus  was  established  the  principle  to  be 
defended  and  likewise  to  be  questioned  in 
the  future,  that  Parliament  alone  had  power 
to  lay  a  tax  on  wool.  In  the  second  place,  by 
the  statute  which  provided  that  no  charge  or 
aid  should  be  levied  but  by  consent  of  Parlia- 
ment, tallage  died  a  legislative  death.2  And 

1  14  Edw.  Ill,  2,  in  1  Staiuies  of  the  Realm,  281,  and  in 
Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  104-105. 

2  The  definite  inclusion  of  tallage  within  the  scope  of  these 
charges  and  aids  prohibited  to  the  royal  control  had  to  be 
asserted  further:     1348.  Condition  of  the  grant  made  by  Par- 
liament that  no  tallage  or  similar  exaction  should  be  imposed 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  179 

not  only  was  this  statute  aimed  at  tallages 
but  as  well  at  every  species  of  unauthorized 
taxation.    Thus  was  enunciated  the  profoundly  Pariia- 
important  principle  that  Parliament  was  the  m 
sole  authority  for  levying  taxes  not  merely  authority 

in  |flw 

on  the  nation  at  large,  as  had  long  been  the 
practice,  but  in  every  department  of  the  govern- 
ment, on  the  royal  demesne  as  readily  as  on 
the  shires  themselves.  If  the  practice  of  future 
years  had  lived  up  to  the  ideal  expressed  in 
this  statute,  it  would  be  possible  to  draw  a 
line  at  the  year  1340  and  say  that  thereafter 
Englishmen  exercised  the  right  of  taxing 
themselves. 

The  commons  perceived,  apparently,  that 
the  incidence  of  indirect  taxation  fell  upon 
the  nation  quite  to  the  same  degree  as  direct 
taxation.  The  customs,  in  the  beginning 
undisputedly  within  the  royal  prerogative, 
and  according  to  royalistic  advocates  unceas- 

by  the  Privy  Council.  2  Rot.  Parl.  200 ;  Adams  and  Stephens, 
Sel.  Doc.  113.  1352.  The  king  openly  declares  that  he  is 
not  intending  again  to  impose  a  tallage.  2  Rot.  Parl. 
238.  1377.  Parliament  petitions,  nearly  in  the  words  of 
the  statute  of  1340.  King  replies  that  only  a  great  exigency 
would  induce  him  to  disregard  the  petition.  2  Rot.  Parl. 
365. 


180  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

ingly  so  up  to  relatively  modern  times,  were 
contended  for  almost  as  heartily  as  power 
over  direct  taxation  itself.  "The  history  of 
the  customs,"  says  Bishop  Stubbs,  "  illustrates 
the  pertinacity  of  the  commons  as  well  as  the 
evasive  policy  of  the  supporters  of  preroga- 
tive." l  Prior  to  the  accession  of  Edward  III, 
the  struggle  for  control,  centering  upon  exac- 
tions in  excess  of  the  antiques  custumce,  was 
quietly  waged  between  king  and  Parliament. 
During  his  reign  and  afterward  the  watchful- 
ness of  Parliament  kept  up. 

After   the  legislation   of   1340,   Parliament 

showed  itself  willing  to  bargain  with  the  king 

for  control  of  the  customs  duties,  thus  staying 

within  its  legal  rights.     It  could  only  petition, 

it  could  not  yet  enforce;  and  when  the  king 

promised  his  assent  to  a  petition  he  frequently 

forgot  his  word.     An  account  of  what  became 

Checkered   of  the  custom  on  wool  is  illuminating  as  indica- 

history  of     j.jve  of  j.]^  variation  between  petition  and  en- 

the  wool 

customs       forcement.     In  1340,  the  king  had  received 
by  grant  of  Parliament  forty  shillings  on  the 
sack,  for  a  year  and  a  half,  on  the  understand- 
ing that  he  would  abolish  the  maletolt.    After 
i  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  557. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  181 

a  lapse  of  two  years,1  Edward  procured  from 
the  merchants  without  the  consent  of  the 
commons,  a  custom  of  forty  shillings  on  the 
sack  and  issued  orders  for  its  collection.  The 
commons,  exhibiting  more  than  an  elementary 
knowledge  of  economic  principles,  perceived 
that  the  tax  fell  not  upon  the  foreign  mer- 
chants, but  upon  the  growers  of  wool.  In 
response  to  the  remonstrance  of  the  com- 
mons made  in  the  Parliament  of  May,  1343, 
Edward  declared  to  them  that  the  price  to 
be  paid  for  wool,  being  fixed  by  the  authority 
of  Parliament,  would  be  constant,  and  that 
consequently  the  foreign  merchants  would 
feel  the  incidence  of  the  tax.2  The  commons, 
duly  impressed  by  so  subtle  an  argument, 
consented  to  a  reimposition  of  the  exaction 
for  three  years  under  the  sanction  of  Parlia- 
ment. After  the  passing  of  the  three  years, 
and  the  ordinance  fixing  the  price  of  wool 
having  in  the  meantime  been  revoked,8  the 
commons,  finding  that  Edward  showed  no 

1  Bishop  Stubbs  conjectures  8th  July,  1342,  as  the  date  of 
the  grant.     2  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  412,  note  2. 

2  2  Rot.  Parl.  140,  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  110. 

3  1  Dowell,  Taxation  and  Taxes,  166,  citing  18  Edw.  HI,  2 
c.  3. 


182  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

disposition  to  release  wool  from  the  custom, 
petitioned  against  its  continuance.1  The  king 
replied  that  he  had  secured  the  assent  of  the 
baronage  and  of  the  merchants,  and  that  he 
had  already  pledged  the  proceeds  of  it  to  his 
creditors.  The  commons,  finding  that  they 
could  not  win  their  point,  contented  them- 
selves with  a  belief  that  having  established 
the  principle,  they  could  at  any  time  demand 
a  practice  of  it,  and  granted  the  perpetuation 
of  the  old  rate  for  two  years.  In  1348,  at  the 
conclusion  of  that  term,  the  commons  again 
presented  a  remonstrance,  asserting  that  the 
wool  subsidy  was  really  a  land  tax.  They 
granted  a  fifteenth  for  three  years  on  the  condi- 
tion that  the  subsidy  of  wool  should  cease  in 
three  years,  and  that  for  the  future  "no  such 
grant  should  be  made  by  the  merchants." 
The  wording  was  particularly  conclusive,  — 
no  "imposition,  tallage,  or  charge  by  way  of 
loan  or  in  any  other  manner,"  was  to  be  laid 
"  without  the  grant  and  assent  of  the  commons 
in  Parliament."  And  the  enactment  was  to 
remain  "as  a  matter  of  record,  whereby  they 
may  have  remedy  if  anything  should  be 

i  2  Rot.  Pad.  161. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  183 

attempted  to  the  contrary  in  time  to  come."  * 
Edward  accepted  the  grant  and  assented  to 
most  of  the  petitions,  but  no  new  statute  was 
based  upon  them,  a  fact  which  is  taken  to 
indicate  that  the  oppressions  complained  of 
were  recognized  as  illegal.2 

Again  in  1362  arbitrary  exactions  on  wool 
received  the  attention  of  the  commons  and 
the  statute  passed  in  that  year  enacted  that 
thereafter  no  subsidy  should  be  set  on  wool 
without  the  assent  of  Parliament.3  Notwith- 
standing the  explicit  and  repeated  assertions 
by  the  Commons  that  Parliament  had  the 
sole  right  to  levy  the  subsidy,  Edward  at 
intervals  exacted  the  maletolt.  The  matter 
reappeared  in  1371  and  was  greeted  with  a 
similar  statute.4 

The  details  of  the  fifteenths  and  tenths,6  of 

1  2  Rot.  Part.  200.    A  translation  is  given  in  Adams  and 
Stephens,  113-114. 

2  2  Stubbs,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  418. 

3  1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  371.    Translation  in  Adams  and 
Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  128;  2  Rot.  Parl.  271. 

*  2  Rot .  Parl.  308. 

6  In  1334  the  fifteenth  and  tenth  was  compounded  for  by 
a  fixed  sum,  rather  than  in  accordance  with  a  strict  assessment. 
Hereafter  each  town  and  each  county  knew  for  how  much  it 
would  have  to  answer.  The  expression  was  the  fiscal  equiv- 


184  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  tunnage  and  poundage,  of  clerical  grants, 
and  of  the  individual  subsidies  on  wool  be- 
long rather  to  the  domain  of  fiscal  history 
than  to  a  consideration  of  the  growing  power 
of  the  English  Parliament  to  levy  taxes.1 
The  constitutional  points  receive  illustration 
most  clearly  in  the  narration  of  the  controversy 
over  wool,  since  in  respect  of  that  and  of  tallage 
new  questions  were  involved.  As  regards  the 
rest,  Parliament  did  not  more  than  confirm 
itself  in  habits  which  it  had  already  formed. 
Appropria-  Side  by  side  with  the  power  to  grant  taxes 
supplies  was  growmg  UP  tne  faculty  for  supervising 
the  expenditure  of  money  so  raised.  As  far 
back  as  the  second  decade  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  III,  in  1237,  William  of  Ralegh  had 
suggested  to  the  Commune  Concilium  that 
it  appoint  a  committee  with  whom  the  pro- 
ceeds of  a  grant  be  deposited  and  by  whom 
the  money  be  expended;  that  the  suggestion 
was  not  taken  was  owing,  perhaps,  to  the 

alent  of  £39,000,  less  about  £6,000  for  decayed  towns.    1  Dow- 
ell,  Taxation  and  Taxes,  89. 

1  The  fifteenths  and  tenths  after  1334  noted  in  Dowell,  1 
Taxation  and  Taxes,  89,  note.  Taxation,  1351-1359,  see 
Stubbs,  2  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  424,  note  1.  Taxation,  1360- 
1368,  see  Stubbs,  2  Const .  Hist.  Eng.  433,  note  1  and  p.  432. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  185 

ignorance  of  the  baronage.  Edward  I  was 
too  strong  to  permit  of  being  so  controlled, 
and  under  Edward  II  the  whole  power  of  the 
crown  was  for  a  time  delegated  to  others;  in 
neither  reign  was  the  principle  of  appropria- 
tion of  supplies  definitely  put  forward.  But 
in  the  time  of  Edward  III,  owing  doubtless 
to  the  vast  sums  thrown  into  his  bottomless 
war  chest,  Parliament  began  to  demand  a 
voice  in  the  disposition  of  the  public  funds. 
In  1340,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  denominated 
in  the  statute  that  the  "profits  of  the  said 
realm  of  England  shall  be  put  and  spent  upon 
the  maintenance  of  the  safeguard  of  our  said 
realm  of  England,  and  of  our  wars."  l  The 
grants  of  1346  and  1348,  in  so  far  as  they 
accrued  from  the  northern  counties,  were  to 
be  applied  to  defend  the  border  against  the 
Scots,2  and  in  1353  a  subsidy  on  wool  was 
granted  to  be  applied  solely  for  the  purposes 
of  the  war.* 

Whether  or  not  the  money  was  actually 
applied  according  to  the  direction  of  Parlia- 
ment was  another  matter.  Efforts  to  ensure 

1 14  Edw.  HI,  2. 

2  2  Rot.  Part.  161,  202.  s  2  Ibid.  252. 


186  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the   carrying   out   of    the   parliamentary  will 

were  begun  as  early  as  1340.     In  that  year  a 

committee   of   lords   and   commons   was   ap- 

Examina-     pointed  to  examine  the  accounts  of  William 

tionof  ac-    de  la  p0je  and  the  Qtner  collectors  of  the  last 
counts 

subsidy.1     In   1341   the  Rolls  of   Parliament 

have  it  that  "the  great  men  and  commons  of 
the  land  pray,  for  the  common  profit  of  the 
king  and  of  themselves,  that  certain  persons 
be  deputed  by  commission  to  audit  the  ac- 
counts of  all  those  who  have  received  the  wool 
of  our  said  lord,  or  other  aid  granted  to  him; 
and  also  of  those  who  have  received  and  paid 
out  his  money,  as  well  beyond  the  seas  as 
in  the  realm  from  the  commencement  of  his 
war  until  now;  and  that  the  rolls  and  other 
remembrances,  obligations,  and  other  things 
made  abroad  be  delivered  into  the  chancery, 
to  be  enrolled  and  recorded,  just  as  was  wont 
to  be  done  heretofore."  2  To  the  petition  the 
royal  response  ran:  "It  is  the  king's  pleasure 
that  this  be  done  by  good  men  deputed  for  the 
purpose,  with  the  addition  that  the  treasurer 

1  2  Ibid.  114. 

2  2  Ibid.  128.    Translation  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens, 
SeZ.  Doc.  105-106. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  187 

and  the  chief  baron  be  of  the  number;  and 
that  it  be  done  concerning  this  as  it  was 
heretofore  ordained;  and  that  the  lords  be 
chosen  in  this  Parliament.  And  also  that  all 
rolls,  remembrances,  and  obligations  made  be- 
yond the  sea,  be  delivered  into  the  chancery."  l 
There  is  not  much  reason  to  suppose  that 
Edward  adhered  to  this  promise  better  than 
he  held  to  others  of  a  similar  character,  save 
that  there  appears  no  complaint  from  Parlia- 
ment until  the  last  year  of  his  reign.  In  1377, 
in  voicing  the  demand  of  Peter  de  la  Mare, 
the  commons  in  the  Good  Parliament  peti- 
tioned "that  it  may  please  our  lord  the  king 
to  name  two  earls  and  two  barons,  of  those 
who  shall  seem  to  him  best,  who  shall  be 
guardians  and  treasurers  as  well  of  this  sub- 
sidy now  granted  and  of  the  subsidy  which 
the  clergy  of  England  is  yet  to  grant  to  the 
king  our  lord,  as  of  the  subsidy  of  wool, 
leather,  and  woolfells  granted  in  the  last  Parlia- 
ment." 2  The  lords  so  chosen  were  to  be 


1  2  Rot.  Part.  130,  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  SeL  Doc. 
106. 

2  2  Rot.  Parl.  364,  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc. 
135. 


188  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

sworn  before  the  commons,  and  were  to 
expend  the  subsidies  "for  the  said  wars  and 
for  no  other  work."  The  high  treasurer  of 
England  was  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  it 
in  anywise  whatsoever.  Decisive  action,  how- 
ever, waited  upon  the  next  reign. 

Death  of  The  long  life  of  Edward  III  came  to  an  end 
iQW2ist  on  ^e  ^s'  June»  1377.  His  was  a  reign  which 
June,  1377  had  seen  much  war,  much  poverty,  much 
famine,  and  worse  than  these,  the  Great 
Plague.  The  time  was  not  well  designed,  so 
it  would  seem,  for  constitutional  advance,  yet 
in  the  direction  of  parliamentary  taxation,  the 
progress  was  marked.  To  be  sure,  Parlia- 
ment had  not  dared  to  come  into  open  com- 
bat with  the  king,  and  had,  in  order  to  pre- 
serve its  theoretical  power,  been  many  times 
obliged  to  sanction  a  tax  after  it  had  been  lev- 
ied. Thus  did  Edward  play  with  Parliament 
throughout  the  argument  over  the  wool  tax, 
yet  the  nation  did  secure  the  enunciation  of 
complete  parliamentary  control  over  the  levy- 
ing of  taxes  of  every  description  in  the  sweep- 
ing legislation  of  1340. 

But  Parliament  had  shown   a  disposition 
to  reach  out  after  powers  which  its  prede- 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  189 

cessors  in  some  instances  had  exercised  and 
in  others  foreshadowed.  The  history  of  the 
wool  customs  shows  this  if  it  shows  nothing 
else,  that  Parliament  was  inclined  to  make 
supply  wait  upon  redress  of  grievances;  that 
the  inclination  was  not  a  determination  was 
owing  to  the  fact  of  Edward's  wars ;  withhold- 
ing supply  would  wreck  English  military  pres- 
tige far  more  quickly  than  the  arms  of  France. 
Yet  the  time  was  not  far  distant  when  the 
grant  would  be  reserved  until  the  end  of  the 
session,  and  thus  secure  the  redress  of  griev- 
ances before  the  granting  of  a  supply.  By 
other  means,  also,  Parliament  was  reaching 
out  to  control  the  executive.  By  appropriat- 
ing money  for  particular  purposes,  to  which 
expenditure  should  be  limited,  and  by  de- 
manding an  audit  of  accounts  to  insure  adher- 
ence to  those  limitations,  the  representatives 
of  the  nation  were  securing  for  it  the  control 
of  the  public  purse,  not  only  in  the  depart- 
ment of  income  but  of  outlay. 

Throughout  the  reigns  of  Edward  II  and  Separate 


Edward  III  a  process  of  differentiation  had  ^es£ 
been  going  on  within  the  walls  of  Parliament 
itself,  resulting  in  separate  sessions  of  lords 


190  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

and  commons.  The  process  had  its  beginnings, 
indeed,  in  the  time  of  Edward  I,  yet  no  in- 
stance can  be  pointed  to  with  certainty  show- 
ing the  separate  sessions  until  1332.  In  that 
year  the  Rolls  of  Parliament  speak  of  dis- 
tinct assemblies.  In  1339  the  division  ap- 
pears to  have  become  permanent.  The  House 
of  Commons  in  1352  occupied  the  Chapter 
House  of  Westminster  Abbey.1  The  separate 
sessions  of  lords  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
knights  of  the  shires  and  the  burgesses  was 
the  preliminary  of  the  assumption  by  the  two 
latter  bodies,  in  name  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, of  the  power  of  initiating  tax  legisla- 
tion. 

Richard  n,  Edward  III  left  the  throne  to  the  keeping  of 
13  -1399  a  k^  njg  grancison,  tne  youthful  Richard  II. 
He  was  only  eleven  years  old  at  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  and  only  thirty-three  when  his 
brief  attempt  at  absolutism  brought  him  dep- 
osition, and  then  death.  "The  fair  rose  with- 
ered," as  Shakespeare  described  his  dethrone- 
ment, but  the  withering  was  due  to  the  attempt 
of  the  king,  ill-advised  and  perhaps  insane,  to 
climb  too  high. 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  211,  note  1. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  191 

In  the  matter  of  taxation,  however,  the 
chief  interest  lies  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign, 
when  the  years  of  Richard's  minority  gave 
the  commons  opportunity  to  enforce  the  exer- 
cise of  the  principle  that  taxes  should  not  be 
levied  without  their  consent,  and  to  foster  the 
theories  advanced  in  the  previous  reign  that 
they  had  a  right  to  examine  the  public  ac- 
counts and  to  appropriate  supplies. 

In  the  time  of  Richard  II  the  examination 
of  public  accounts  and  the  granting  of  money 
for  specific  purposes,  became  national  issues. 
At  his  first  Parliament,  that  of  October,  1377, 
grants  of  two  fifteenths  and  tenths  were  made 
for  the  prosecution  of  the  French  war  on  the 
express  condition  that  two  treasurers  be  ap- 
pointed who  should  see  to  the  due  application 
of  the  proceeds.1  The  king  chose  William  Trouble 
Walworth  and  John  Philipot,  merchants  of  °f 
London,  the  latter  of  whom  is  distinguished 
as  one  of  the  earliest  English  financiers,  and 
these  swore  to  perform  their  duties  faithfully. 
It  was  not  without  difficulty,  however,  that 
the  next  Parliament,  which  met  in  October, 

1  3  Rot.  Parl.  7;  translation  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel. 
Doc.  136. 


° 


192  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

1378,  was  able  to  secure  an  accounting.  The 
commons  demanded  the  accounts  and  for  a 
time  the  chancellor  attempted  evasion,  hoping, 
so  it  appears,  to  shield  John  of  Gaunt  who 
was  suspected  of  obtaining  money  from  the 
treasurers  for  his  private  purposes.  He  was 
forced  to  yield  and  the  accounts  were  laid  open 
to  criticism,  though  with  the  incidental  asser- 
tion by  the  king  "  that  it  had  never  been  known 
that,  of  a  subsidy  or  other  grant  made  to  the 
king  in  Parliament  or  out  of  Parliament  by 
the  commons,  an  account  had  afterwards  been 
rendered  to  the  commons  or  to  any  one 
else  except  to  the  king  and  his  officers." 
More  than  that,  there  was  to  be  understand- 
ing "that  this  shall  not  in  future  be  con- 
sidered a  precedent  or  an  inference  that  this 
should  have  been  done  otherwise  than  by 
the  personal  volition  and  command  alone  of 
our  said  lord  the  king.  .  .  ."  l 

Nevertheless,  this  same  Parliament  upon 
the  occasion  of  its  grant  to  the  king,  petitioned 
that  it  be  expended  for  the  advantage  of  the 
kingdom,  and  that  competent  treasurers  be 

1  3  Rot.  Part.  35-36.     Translation  in  Adams  and  Stephens, 
Sd.  Doc.  137-138. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  193 

appointed  to  keep  the  accounts.1  The  thirteen- 
year-old  king  readily  fell  in  with  the  idea.  To 
the  Parliament  of  1379  he  sent  letters  in  which 
he  said,  "That  you  may  be  fully  informed  of 
the  real  nature  of  the  said  necessary  expendi- 
tures made  and  to  be  made,  the  treasurers  for 
the  said  war  shall  be  present  and  shall  ap- 
pear, at  such  hour  as  pleases  you,  to  show  you 
clearly  in  writing  their  receipts  and  expendi- 
tures made  since  the  last  Parliament."  2  The 
House  of  Commons,  later  during  the  same  Par- 
liament petitioned  for  the  discharge  of  the 
special  treasurers,  and  prayed  that  the  Treas- 
urer of  England  with  the  Chamberlains  of  the 
Exchequer  receive  money  as  "was  usual  of 
old."  3  Here  is  an  early  instance  of  the  indi- 
vidual action  of  the  House  of  Commons.  But 
in  1380,  the  tide  turned  back.  The  commons 
who  were  assuming  leadership  in  the  situation, 
hearing  from  the  chancellor  of  the  very  serious 
embarrassment  in  which  the  crown  found  it- 
self, were  stung  to  the  belief  that  there  was  ex- 

i  3  Rot.  Parl.  36. 

* 3  Ibid.  56.    Translation  given  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Set. 
Doc.  138. 

3  3  Rot.  Parl.  66. 


194  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

travagance  in  the  royal  household,  or  else  that 

the  ministers  were  incapable.    They  therefore 

prayed  the  king  to  allow  the  election  in  Parlia- 

Special        ment  of  the  chief  officers  of  state.    Richard 

treasurers 

responded  favorably  and  the  commission  was 
appointed,  with  the  old  treasurers  of  subsidies, 
William  Walworth  and  John  Philipot,  as 
members.1  By  1382  the  reversion  to  the 
system  of  special  treasurers  was  complete,2 
and  from  that  time,  save  at  moments  of  great 
national  confusion,  these  officers  were  regu- 
larly appointed  and  had  as  their  duties  the 
keeping  of  accounts,  both  of  income  and 
outlay,  which  were  to  be  presented  before 
Parliament  at  its  session  immediately  follow- 
ing. 

Over  the  levy  of  taxes  Parliament,  so  it 
appears,  had  unquestioned  control  throughout 
the  reign;3  the  king's  household  was  vastly 

1  3  Rot.  Part.  73. 

2  3  Ibid.  124. 

3  The  taxes  during  the  reign  in  summary: — Parliament  of 
October,  1377.    Two  tenths  and  two  fifteenths.    3  Rot.  Parl. 
7.    Parliament  of  October,  1378.   An  increase  of  custom  on 
wool  and  merchandise  over  the  grant  to  Edward  III  in  1376. 
3  Rot.  Parl.  37.      Parliament  of  April,  1379  (another  session 
of  the  last  Parliament).     Superseded  the  above  tax  on  wool, 
which  had  proven  to  be  insufficient,  with  a  graduated  poll-tax 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  195 

extravagant  and  the  royal  prerogative  of 
purveyance  was  exercised  to  excess,  but  even 

which  varied  according  to  the  position  of  the  taxpayer.  A 
tax  of  a  groat  a  head  had  been  levied  in  1377,  but  this  was  the 
first  instance  of  a  poll-tax  of  varied  incidence.  The  payments: 
The  Dukes  of  Lancaster  and  Bretagne,  ten  marks  each;  earls 
or  their  widows,  four  pounds;  barons  and  baronets,  two 
pounds;  and  so  on  down  to  persons  of  the  lowest  rank,  who 
were  to  pay  a  groat  apiece.  (Further  details,  1  Dowell,  Taxa- 
tion and  Taxes,  94.)  Proceeds  were  to  be  strictly  for  national 
defense.  Produced  about  half  as  much  as  was  expected,  only 
£22,000.  3  Rot.  Parl.  57-58,  72-73.  Parliament  of  1380.  A 
tenth  and  a  half  and  a  fifteenth  and  a  half  with  a  year's  sub- 
sidy on  wool.  A  second  Parliament,  finding  this  amount 
insufficient,  in  the  same  year  undertook  to  raise  the  "out- 
rageous and  intolerable"  amount,  £160,000.  The  means  was 
another  graduated  poll-tax,  varying  from  sixty  groats  to  three, 
together  with  a  continuance  of  the  subsidy  on  wool,  a  custom 
which  netted  about  £60,000  annually.  The  clergy  undertook 
to  raise  their  share  of  the  money.  The  poll-tax  was  expected  to 
bring  about  £66,000.  3  Rot.  Parl.  75,  90.  Parliament  of 
1382.  A  fifteenth  and  a  tenth,  to  be  devoted  wholly  to  the 
defense  of  the  realm.  Tunnage  and  poundage  for  two  years. 
3  Rot.  Parl.  124,  134.  Parliaments  of  1383.  Grant  of  fif- 
teenth and  tenth  made  in  1382,  given  to  Bishop  of  Norwich 
who  was  warring  against  the  anti-pope  in  Flanders.  He  was 
held  to  account  at  the  October  session.  Two  half  tenths  and 
two  half  fifteenths  were  granted  by  the  commons,  one-half 
without  condition,  and  the  other  half  for  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  if  it  be  prolonged.  Clergy  made  similar  grants.  3  Rot. 
Parl.  151-152.  Parliament  of  1384.  At  spring  session  half  a 
tenth  and  fifteenth.  At  fall  session,  two  tenths  and  fifteenths, 
one  of  which  was  remitted  the  following  spring.  The  object 


196  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

in  the  articles  of  deposition  no  word  of  com- 
plaint, save  in  the  most  general  terms,  is 

was  the  prosecution  of  a  war  in  Scotland.  3  Rot.  Parl.  167, 
185,  398.  Parliament  of  1385.  Granted  a  fifteenth  and  a  half 
and  a  tenth  and  a  half.  Wool  subsidy  renewed  for  another 
year.  3  Rot .  Parl.  204.  Parliament  of  1386.  Half  a  tenth  and 
fifteenth,  with  duplication  if  exigencies  of  war  demanded. 
Continuance  of  subsidy  on  wool  and  merchandise,  the  object 
being  for  naval  defense.  Before  Richard  could  obtain  this 
grant,  he  had  to  consent  to  the  appointment  of  a  commission 
of  reform  to  correct  the  irregularities  in  the  realm  and  in  his 
household.  3  Rot.  Parl.  220-221.  Parliaments  of  1388. 
First  session.  Half  a  tenth  and  fifteenth  with  tunnage  and 
poundage  and  the  custom  on  wool.  From  the  subsidy  on  wool 
JE20.000  is  awarded  to  the  "Lords  Appellant,"  who  had 
brought  charges  against  the  royal  favorites  upon  which  they 
were  convicted  and  punished.  3  Rot.  Parl.  244-245.  The 
increase  of  custom  on  wool  is  forbidden.  Fall  session.  A  tenth 
and  a  fifteenth.  2  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  505,  note  3,  and 
citations.  Parliament  of  1390.  Subsidy  on  wool  and  mer- 
chandise. 3  Rot.  Parl.  278.  Parliament  of  1391.  A  fifteenth 
and  a  half  and  a  tenth  and  a  half.  Above  subsidy  on  wool  and 
merchandise  renewed  for  three  years  at  an  increased  rate. 
3  Rot .  Parl.  285-286.  Parliament  of  1393.  Grant  on  wool  and 
merchandise  for  three  years.  3  Rot.  Parl.  301.  Parliament  of 
1394.  Tunnage  and  poundage.  3  Rot.  Parl.  314.  Parliament 
of  1395.  Fifteenth  and  tenth.  3  Rot.  Parl.  330.  Parliament 
of  1397.  Custom  on  wool  for  five  years.  Tunnage  and  pound- 
age for  three  years.  Protest  registered  against  the  extrava- 
gance of  the  court.  3  Rot .  Parl.  340.  Parliament  of  1398.  A 
tenth  and  a  half  and  a  fifteenth  and  a  hah*.  A  subsidy  on  wool, 
woolfells,  and  leather  for  the  term  of  Richard's  life.  3  Rot. 
Parl.  368. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  197 

levelled  at  the  king  for  laying  taxes  unlaw- 
fully, and   this  remonstrance  is  unsupported  Taxation 

by  specific  instances.    Indeed,  the  most  violent  by  Parlia' 

meat 

outbreak  on  the  score  of  taxation  was  against 
Parliament  itself. 

In  1380,  Parliament  found  itself  in  this 
difficult  position,  that  it  was  under  necessity 
of  supplying  an  immensely  large  sum,  no  less 
than  ,£160,000,  as  speedily  as  possible.  The 
French  war,  an  expedition  about  to  be  under- 
taken against  Scotland,  and  the  usual  ex- 
penses of  the  kingdom  had  so  depleted  the 
royal  treasury  that  the  king  was  sorely  em- 
barrassed; he  was  greatly  in  debt  and  his 
jewels  were  already  pawned.  The  commons 
were  at  a  loss  to  devise  the  means  whereby 
so  great  a  sum  could  be  raised,  and  showed  a 
disposition  to  shirk  the  burden.  The  lords 
undertook  it  and  suggested  three  methods:  a 
graduated  poll-tax,  a  custom  on  merchandise, 
or  a  number  of  fifteenths  and  tenths.  The 
commons,  seeing  in  the  first  the  virtue  of 
rapid  assessment  and  collection,  chose  it  in 
spite  of  the  disappointing  proceeds  of  the 
poll-tax  of  two  years  previously.  A  subsidy 
on  wool,  the  normal  income  from  which  would 


198  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

amount  to  £60,000,  was  to  serve  as  an  aux- 
iliary tax.  The  clergy  undertook  to  raise  a 
third  of  the  remaining  £100,000,  leaving  some 
£66,667  to  accrue  from  the  poll-tax.  The 
rate  varied  according  to  individuals  from 
sixty  groats  to  three,  with  an  understanding 
that  the  rich  should  help  the  poor,  but  that 
in  no  case  should  a  man  pay  less  than  a  groat 
for  himself  and  his  wife.1 

The  Rising  Here  was  the  exciting  cause  for  the  Rising 
Villeins  °f  the  Villeins  which  Bishop  Stubbs  describes 
as  "one  of  the  most  portentous  phenomena  to 
be  found  in  the  whole  of  our  history." 2 
Following  closely  as  did  the  poll-tax  of  1380 
upon  those  of  1378  and  1379,  both  of  which 
bore  heavily  upon  the  lesser  people,  the  im- 
post set  fire  to  tinder  which  had  been  long 
preparing  for  a  conflagration.  To  enter  into 
an  inquiry  as  to  the  underlying  causes  and 
the  ultimate  consequences  of  this  rising,  would 
be  to  travel  far  afield.  It  is  sufficient  to  ob- 
serve that  the  payment  of  even  so  small  a  sum 
as  a  groat,  served  to  bring  freshly  to  the  minds 

1  The  scheme  is  given  in  translation  in  Adams  and  Stephens, 
Sel.  Doc.  142-144,  from  the  original  in  3  Rot.  Part.  90. 

2  2  Stubbs.  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  471. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  199 

of  the  most  ignorant  the  maladministration  in 
London,  and  to  arouse  in  them  the  impulse, 
however  ill-advised  or  ill-directed,  to  correct 
abuses  in  the  executive.  The  Rising  of  the 
Villeins  is  illustrative  of  the  not  unusual  con- 
ception that  bad  government  is  chiefly  repre- 
hensible because  it  is  expensive. 

The  taxation  during  the  years  1389-1397  was 
regular  and  moderate.  Richard's  rule  for  the 
time  was  that  of  a  constitutional  monarch  and 
his  Parliaments  exercised  the  power  of  initiat- 
ing taxation  without  opposition.  Parliament 
was  practicing  what  it  had  accomplished  in 
theory  in  the  long  years  of  struggle  since  Magna 
Carta;  it  was  accustoming  itself  to  the  exercise 
of  the  powers  which  in  principle  it  had  ac- 
quired. Fulfillment  in  fact  was  following  upon 
enunciation  of  principle.  Consequently  it  was 
with  the  greater  shock  to  the  nation  that  Rich- 
ard II  suddenly  changed  from  his  constitu- 
tional habit  and  took  upon  himself  the  powers 
of  a  despot. 

The  temptation  came  to  him  as  a  result  Richard's 
of  the  action  of  Parliament  itself.     In  1398,  de"p;tis? 

and  his  de- 
following  upon   its  grant   the  previous  year,  thronement 

of  a  custom  on  wool  for  five  years  and  tunnage 


200  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

and  poundage  for  three  years,  it  granted  the 
subsidy  on  wool,  woolfells,  and  leather  to 
Richard  for  the  space  of  his  life.  Beside  this 
unprecedented  liberality,  it  gave  him  as  well 
a  tenth  and  a  half  and  a  fifteenth  and  a  half 
for  the  curious  term  of  a  year  and  a  half.1 
Nor  was  this  all.  It  cut  off  its  own  head  by 
delegating  its  authority  to  a  standing  committee 
of  Parliament.  The  opening  was  barely  offered 
before  Richard  took  advantage  of  it.  With  a 
revenue  for  life  and  a  Council  subservient  to 
his  will,  scarcely  ever  was  there  better  chance 
for  despotism ;  but  the  acceptance  of  the  oppor- 
tunity was  the  close  forerunner  of  disaster. 

With  the  idea  in  his  head  that  all  was  safe 
in  England,  Richard  went  off  to  Ireland.  This 
gave  Henry,  the  heir  to  the  dukedom  of  Lan- 
caster, a  dream  of  an  unguarded  throne  to 
which  he  could  climb.  Estranged  by  reason 
of  his  disinheritance,  he  was  ready  to  act  as 
soon  as  he  saw  such  a  vision.  He  landed  in 
Yorkshire,  moved  southward,  receiving  alle- 
giance of  the  people  as  he  went,  and  won 
away  from  Richard  the  powerful  supporters 
of  the  throne.  Richard,  returning,  fought  a 
i  3  Rot.  Pad.  368. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  201 

battle  already  lost.  He  resigned  his  kingship, 
and  the  nation  as  represented  in  Parliament, 
accepted  his  resignation. 

The  charges  against  the  king,  upon  which 
sentence  of  deposition  was  pronounced,  were 
summed  up  in  thirty-three  articles.  Only  four 
of  them  in  any  degree  concern  taxation.  These 
are:  (14)  he  had  not  repaid  loans  made  in  de- 
pendence upon  his  solemn  promise;  (15)  he 
had  alienated  the  crown  estates,  and  exacted 
unlawful  taxes  and  purveyances;  (19)  he  had 
tampered  with  the  elections  by  nominating 
the  knights  whom  the  sheriffs  were  to  return, 
in  order  to  ensure  to  himself  a  revenue  for 
life;  (21)  he  had  extorted  money  from  seven- 
teen whole  shires  for  pretended  pardons.1 

The  charges  were  doubtless  colored  by  en- 
thusiasm for  his  deposition.  The  most  seri- 
ous, that  of  unlawful  taxation,  seems  difficult 
to  substantiate  unless  it  be  taken  in  connection 
with  the  article  which  asserts  that  the  Parlia- 
ment of  1398  was  packed  for  the  very  purpose 
of  securing  a  revenue  for  life.  The  complaint 
against  purveyance  seems  equally  ill-founded; 
during  the  reign  of  Edward  III  it  had  assumed 

i  3  Rot.  Parl.  417  ff. 


202  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  proportions  of  a  great  abuse  of  prerogative, 
but  it  was  not  in  the  time  of  his  grandson  an  ob- 
ject of  great  concern  to  the  nation.  Thomas 
of  Walsingham,  whose  tone  is  somewhat  queru- 
lous, gives  substance  to  the  charges  about 
the  nonpayment  of  loans  and  the  exaction 
of  money  for  pretended  pardons.  "Prom- 
ising in  good  faith  to  repay,"  he  says,  "he 
never  after  gave  the  money  back  to  his  cred- 
itors." Further,  "The  clergy  and  the  com- 
mon people  and  the  temporal  lords  were  con- 
strained to  give  the  king  sums  of  money  beyond 
the  strength  of  man  to  bear,  in  order  to  buy 
back  his  good  will."  1  The  step  was  very  short 
to  the  forced  loans  of  the  Tudors. 

The  trouble  with  Richard  was  that  he  did 
not  go  to  school  to  history.  Parliament  was 
putting  into  practice  what  it  could  learn  from 
the  experience  of  its  predecessors.  Richard, 
swept  with  a  desire,  intense  and  perhaps  in- 
sane, to  wield  the  sceptre  of  absolutism,  was 
blinded  to  what  he  might  have  read,  and  un- 
derwent the  consequences. 

Henry  iv,        Henry  IV  was  better  advised ;  at  any  rate, 
he  was  politic  enough  to  live  closely  by  what 

i  2  Thorn,  de  Wals.  230-231.    Cf.  3  Rot.  Part.  62. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  203 

he  had  learned.  He  was  suspicious,  cautious, 
slow  and  faltering  in  action  save  in  the  one 
supreme  instance  of  seizing  the  throne;  an 
exceedingly  good  politician.  The  power  of 
Parliament  and  especially  of  the  commons 
during  his  reign  was  more  complete  than 
ever  before,  —  fuller,  indeed,  than  it  should  be 
again  until  after  the  final  hand-to-hand  struggle 
with  the  Stuarts.  In  the  matter  of  taxation, 
instances  of  illegality  are  rare;  Parliament 
continued  to  exercise  the  supreme  control  in 
voting  taxes;  and  in  the  more  recently  ac- 
quired rights  of  appropriating  supplies  and 
examining  public  accounts,  the  supremacy  of 
Parliament  was  established.  Not  only  does 
this  observation  hold  good  during  the  reign 
of  Henry  IV,  but  it  is  equally  applicable  to 
the  two  Lancastrians  who  succeeded  him. 

In  1400  there  appears  to  have  been  an 
exception  to  this  rule.  Henry  apparently  se- 
cured an  aid  not  from  Parliament  but  from 
the  Great  Council.  There  was  the  under- 
standing, however,  that  the  grant  was  binding 
not  upon  the  nation  at  large  but  upon  the 
members  of  the  Council. 

In  1401   the  commons  attempted  to  make 


204  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

dependence  of  supply  upon  redress  of  griev- 
ances a  part  of  the  regular  parliamentary 
procedure.  They  prayed  the  king  that  they 
know  his  responses  to  petitions  before  setting 
themselves  to  the  business  of  granting  a  sup- 
ply. Henry  met  the  issue  squarely.  "On  the 
last  day  of  the  Parliament,"  say  the  Rolls, 
"response  was  made  that  this  manner  of  deed 
had  not  been  seen  nor  used  in  the  time  of  any 
of  his  ancestors  or  predecessors,  that  they 
should  have  any  response  to  their  petitions 
or  knowledge  of  the  same  before  they  had 
taken  up  and  completed  all  the  other  business 
of  Parliament,  be  it  to  make  any  grant  or 
otherwise.  And  therefore  the  king  did  not 
wish  in  any  way  to  change  the  good  customs 
and  usages  made  and  used  in  former  times."  1 
Nevertheless,  the  commons  proceeded  to  put 
into  practice  the  substance  of  their  demand 
Practice  of  by  delaying  their  grants  of  supply  until  the 
leiaying  jasj.  ^  Qf  fae  session,  when  the  most  impor- 

tant  of  the  petitions  would  have  received  an- 
swers. Thus  the  next  Parliament,  that  which 
met  on  the  30th  September,  1402,  withheld  its 

i  3  Rot.  Parl.  458.    Translation  given  in  Adams  and  Ste- 
phens, Sel.  Doc.  173. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  205 

grant  until  the  24th  November;  the  session 
closed  on  the  25th  and  no  business  was  trans- 
acted in  the  meantime. 

The  chief  advance  in  the  reign  of  the  new 
king  lay  not  in  a  fuller  control  by  Parliament 
in  the  matter  of  laying  taxation;  that  would 
scarcely  have  been  possible.  But  it  lay  rather 
in  a  differentiation  of  powers  within  Parlia- 
ment itself,  leading  to  a  more  complete  super- 
vision of  taxation  by  the  House  of  Commons,  initiation 

Since  the  end  of  Edward  Ill's  reign  the  theory  ff !** . 

•    levies  in 

had  been  practiced  that  the  commons  should  the  House 
exercise  a  decisive  power  over  the  levy  of  taxes,  mons  1407 
as  illustrated  in  the  levy  of  the  poll-tax  of  1380. 

The  form  of  making  a  grant,  "made  by  the 
commons  with  the  assent  of  the  lords  spiritual 
and  temporal"  first  occurred  in  the  grants  to 
Richard  II  in  1395.1  Votes  of  money  previous 
to  that  year  were  made  in  conjunction  with 
the  House  of  Lords.  The  phrase  was  repeated 
in  the  grants  of  1401  and  1402. 

In  1407  came  the  assertion  that  to  the  com- 
mons not  only  belonged  decisive  power,  but 
that  they  alone  had  the  faculty  of  originating 
taxation.  It  came  not  as  a  direct  demand  for 

i  3  Rot.  Parl.  493. 


206  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  yielding  of  a  principle,  but  as  an  implica- 
tion that  the  practice  already  existed,  and  as 
such  it  gains  in  strength. 

The  trend  of  events  leading  up  to  the  sig- 
nificant reference  is  interesting.  In  1407  the 
lords  had  held  a  debate  in  the  king's  pres- 
ence respecting  the  condition  of  the  kingdom, 
and  had  determined  upon  the  number  of  sub- 
sidies needful  for  national  defense.  Henry, 
for  the  moment  forgetting  his  politics,  in  a 
peremptory  tone  requested  the  commons  to 
send  a  delegation  to  the  House  of  Lords  "to 
hear  and  to  report  to  their  companions  that 
which  they  should  have  in  command  of  our 
lord  the  king.'*  The  commons  sent  a  com- 
mittee of  twelve  in  response  to  the  request; 
they  heard  that  "it  was  the  will  of  our  said 
lord  the  King  they  should  report  to  the  rest 
of  their  companions"  the  determination  of 
the  lords,  and  that,  "they  should  see  to  it 
that  they  conformed  most  nearly  to  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Lords  aforesaid."  When  the 
delegates  returned,  their  report  was  received 
by  the  commons  as  being  an  infringement 
upon  their  liberties.  The  king,  hearing  of 
the  temper  of  the  commons,  reassuming  imme- 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  207 

diately  his  habit  of  the  politician,  "declares, 
by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  lords  in 
manner  following,"  that  it  is  lawful  for  both 
houses  to  commune  apart  by  themselves  "of 
the  state  of  the  realm  and  of  the  remedy 
necessary  for  the  same."  So  far  the  king  has 
merely  recognized  the  need  for  separate  delib- 
erations by  the  two  houses;  the  phrase  which 
implies  the  existence  in  the  House  of  Commons 
of  the  power  to  initiate  taxation  is  this:  "Any 
grant  by  the  commons  granted,  and  by  the 
lords  assented  to."  l  Thus  is  admitted  by  im- 
plication the  order  in  which  a  grant  should  be 
made  by  the  two  houses.  In  the  same  com- 
munication the  king  renounces  any  right 
which  he  might  previously  have  held  to  know 
the  amount  or  conditions  of  a  prospective 
grant  until  both  houses  should  be  of  one 
mind.  The  grant  which  eased  so  sweeping  an 
admission  from  the  king  was  generous.2  It 
consisted  of  a  fifteenth  and  a  half  and  a  tenth 

1  3  Rot.  Parl.  611.    Translation  given  in  Adams  and  Ste- 
phens, Sel.  Doc.  125-127. 

2  In  1472  was  a  marked  departure  from  the  rule.    A  grant 
regularly  enacted,  appropriating  revenue  and  income  of  the 
commons,  was  changed  by  the  lords  to  include  a  tax  on  their 
own  propertv.    6  Rot.  Parl.  4-8.    The  good  intent  of  the  act, 


208  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

and  a  half,  a  subsidy  on  wool,  and  tunnage 
and  poundage  for  two  years.1 

In  1410  Henry  asked  Parliament  for  per- 
mission to' collect  a  tenth  and  a  fifteenth  an- 
nually, whenever  Parliament  should  not  be 
sitting.  Had  the  request  been  granted,  the 
result  for  a  frugal  monarch  would  have  been 
hardly  less  than  independence  of  parliamen- 
tary control.  He  was  refused.  Without  the  fre- 
quent necessity  of  calling  a  Parliament,  Henry's 
last  years,  instead  of  their  smooth  constitu- 
tional trend,  might  readily  have  had  as  tragic 
a  story  as  those  of  Richard  II.  He  died  in  1413. 
Henry  v,  His  son  Henry  V  came  to  the  throne  with- 
1413-1422  ouj.  disput^  ancj  for  a  brief  nine  years  fired 

the  souls  of  the  English  people  with  zest  of 
conquest  and  pride  of  race.  A  warrior,  the 
mediaeval  ideal  of  a  king,  he  was  yet  noble 
of  mind  and  soul.  Had  his  brilliant  career 
not  so  suddenly  flickered  and  gone  out,  he 
might  have  won  a  place  beside  Edward  I;  as 
it  was,  the  constitutional  history  of  his  reign 
reveals  no  struggle  between  people  and  mon- 

justified  in  the  eyes  of  contemporaries,  apparently,  its  irreg- 
ularity. 

13  Rat.  Part.  612. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  209 

arch  over  the  sordid  wherewithal  to  fight  his 
battles;  both  sides  apparently  honored  the 
other.  The  taxation  during  his  reign  was 
heavy,  but  it  was  voted  gladly  to  the  king 
who  could  use  it  as  a  means  to  victory  at 
Agincourt.  Henry  V,  whom  his  people  loved 
enough  to  make  legendary  participant  in  their 
revellings,  died  in  France,  31st  August,  1422. 

Henry  VI  was  almost  as  unfortunate  in  Henry  vi 
his  birth  as  in  his  death,  and  his  life  seemed  M22-1461 
to  bring  him  nothing  but  disaster.  He  was 
barely  a  year  old  when  his  father  died,  his 
troubled  reign  saw  the  Wars  of  the  Roses, 
and  tradition  has  it  that  he  died  by  the  hand 
of  Richard,  Duke  of  Gloucester,  afterward 
king.  Weak  in  health,  the  possessor  of  a 
mind  which  in  boyhood  showed  the  feverish 
precocity  that  foreshadows  an  unbalanced 
maturity,  he  was  nevertheless  generous,  tem- 
perate, mild,  and  devoted. 

The  early  part  of  his  reign  gives  one  of  the 
few  instances  chronicled  under  the  Lancas- 
trian kings  of  an  attack  upon  constitutional 
usages  in  taxation.  In  1425  while  the  Duke 
of  Bedford  and  Humfrey,  Duke  of  Gloucester 
were  acting  virtually  as  regents  to  their  nephew 


210  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  young  king,  Bedford  together  with  various 
other  lords  announced  in  Parliament  that  a 
certain  subsidy,  which  had  been  appropriated 
for  a  particular  purpose,  should  be  levied  for 
the  king's  use  notwithstanding  the  conditions 
attaching  to  it;  they  advanced  an  opinion  of 
the  justices  favoring  their  action.     The  com- 
mons vindicated  their  right,  however,  in  the 
same  Parliament;   they  made   a  fresh  grant, 
restating  the  former  conditions,  with  this  ex- 
Declara-      plicit  addition,  "  No  part  thereof  be  beset  ne 
propriation"  dispendid  to  no  othir  use,  but  oonly  in  and 
of  supplies    for  the  defense  of  the  seid  roialme."  1 

It  would  be  both  wearisome  and  profitless 
to  enter  into  a  detailed  account  of  the  various 
subsidies  on  wool,  of  income  taxes,  of  fifteenths 
and  tenths  which  trod  one  on  the  heels  of  the 
other  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.  One 
incident  of  a  constitutional  character,  however, 
rises  from  the  general  regularity.  In  1449, 
Parliament  attempted  to  levy  a  tax  upon  the 
stipendiary  priests,  though  usage  had  it  that 
the  clergy  were  to  have  the  power  of  taxing 
themselves  in  convocation;  a  subsidy  of  a 
noble  was  levied  upon  each  stipendiary  priest, 

i  4  Rat.  Parl.  301-302. 


TAXATION  BY  THE  COMMONS  211 

for  which  they  were  to  receive  a  general  par- 
don at  the  hands  of  Parliament.  Henry,  per- 
ceiving that  trouble  was  brewing,  addressed 
the  clergy,  saying  that  it  was  for  them  to 
make  the  grant  in  convocation,  and  that  it 
was  for  him  to  pardon.  Thus  Parliament,  for 
the  moment  overreaching  itself,  was  forced 
back  upon  the  justice  of  precedent.1 

The  wars  with  France  and  with  Burgundy, 
the  heavy  taxation  incident  to  them,  the  rebel- 
lion of  Jack  Cade  arising  out  of  it,  and  the 
Wars  of  the  Roses  in  1453  following  closely 
thereafter;  the  woeful  struggle  of  Henry, 
bleached-out  in  mind,  a  dependent  upon  the 
efforts  of  a  woman  against  the  rising  power  of  Accession 
York;  the  wanton  shedding  of  the  noblest  Yorkists 
blood  in  England  —  these  neither  developed 
nor  confirmed  parliamentary  power.  Edward 
of  York,  it  is  sufficient  to  understand,  became 
king  on  the  4th  March,  1461,  upon  King 
Henry's  overthrow.  A  momentary  turning  of 
the  tide  set  him  once  more  upon  it,  but  his 
tenure  was  very  brief  and  ended  in  tragedy. 

The  passing  of  Henry  VI  brings  us  to  the 
dawn  of  the  Yorkist  and  Tudor  era.    During 

i  5  Rot.  Parl.  152-153. 


212  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  reigns  of  the  son  and  grandson  of  Edward  I 
and  the  reigns  of  Richard  II  and  the  Lan- 
castrians, Parliament  had  developed  swiftly, 
not  so  much  in  the  assumption  of  new  powers 
as  in  the  distribution  of  powers  within  itself. 
The  commons  became  a  separate  body.  Bur- 
gesses learned  to  act  in  the  House  of  Commons 
in  concert  with  knights  of  the  shires  who  in 
the  time  of  Edward  I  had  made  common 
cause  with  the  greater  barons.  Together  they 
assumed  the  right  of  initiating  taxes,  with  the 
understanding  that  the  hereditary  chamber 
should  have  solely  the  power  of  assent. 

The  right  of  Parliament  as  against  that  of 
the  king  to  control  taxation  was  enunciated 
again  and  again,  not  only  in  the  instance  of 
direct  taxation,  including  the  levies  of  tallage, 
but  in  the  case  of  the  customs,  as  indicated 
in  the  legislation  prohibiting  the  maletolt. 

But  the  enunciation  of  powers  of  Parlia- 
ment was  not  followed  by  complete  and  undis- 
puted exercise  of  the  rights  so  enunciated. 
The  kings  clung  to  what  they  deemed  their 
ancient  prerogatives  and  more  than  once  over- 
stepped the  law.  The  Yorkists  and  Tudors 
showed  a  disposition  somewhat  less  amenable. 


VI 

EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY   EXACTION 
1461-1603 

WITH  the  coming  of  the  Yorkist  kings  in 
1461  there  began  a  period  lasting  until  the 
end  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign,  in  which  the 
taxing  powers  of  Parliament  were  subtly 
assailed  by  monarchs  who  knew  how  to  use 
the  law  to  their  own  advantage,  regardless  of 
its  intent.  Yet  the  powers,  attenuated  though 
they  were,  remained  to  form  the  substance 
of  vigorous  opposition  to  the  attacks  of  the 
Stuarts,  when  they  should  try  to  practice  their 
theories  of  absolutism. 

Under  Edward  IV,  whose  reign  dates  from  Edward  rv, 
1461,  the  forms  of  taxation  by  authority  of 
Parliament  were  indeed  gone  through  with. 
In  that  respect  his  reign  was  typical  of  the 
period.  His  early  taxation,  levied  while  the 
struggle  with  the  Lancastrians  was  still  in 
progress,  was  not  particularly  heavy;  but  be- 


214  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

ing  laid  by  Parliaments  sympathetic  with  the 
Yorkist  cause,  Edward  had  little  difficulty 
in  exerting  supreme  influence  over  it.  Four 
years  after  his  accession,  he  was  given  the 
subsidy  on  wool  and  tunnage  and  poundage 
for  life.1  Beside  these,  Parliament  granted  him 
frequent  fifteenths  and  tenths.  Not  content, 
however,  with  the  grants  made  by  Parliament, 
he  had  recourse  to  a  new  form  of  extortion 
known  by  the  euphemistic  title  of  benevo- 
lence. The  benevolence  was  a  gift  made  to 
the  king  by  individuals  or  groups  of  them, 
ostensibly  in  charity,  but  in  reality  under  en- 
forcement. It  differed  from  the  forced  loan, 
the  exaction  of  which  is  mentioned  in  the  list 
of  charges  leading  to  the  deposition  of  Rich- 
ard II,  in  that  by  it  the  king  incurred  no  obli- 
gation for  repayment.  Henry  VIII  in  later 
Benevo-  years  proved  himself  a  genius  at  obtaining 

lencesand    j^^    of    these    means    of   income.      Edward 
forced 

loans  found  also  that  the  revival  of  obsolete  statutes 
and  the  laying  of  fines  for  breaches  of  them 
could  be  turned  to  profit;  the  collection  of  an- 
cient debts  due  to  the  crown,  and  the  ultiliza- 
tion  of  the  royal  power  to  advance  his  own 

i  5  Rot.  Parl.  508. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  215 

mercantile  interests,  Edward  pushed  to  the 
extreme  in  order  to  supplement  the  not  infre- 
quent regular  grants  of  Parliament. 

Dowell  retells  the  story  given  in  Hall's 
Chronicle  of  Edward  and  a  certain  rich  widow 
to  whom  he  applied  in  person  for  a  benevo- 
lence. In  his  younger  days  Edward  was  one 
of  the  handsomest  men  in  the  land,  and  the 
widow  received  his  advances  with  favor.  He 
asked  her  for  a  gift  and  she  promptly  gave 
him  £20. 

"By  my  troth,"  says  she,  "for  thy  lovely 
countenance  thou  shalt  have  even  twenty 
pounds." 

Edward,  who  had  "looked  for  scarce  half 
that  sum,  thanked  her  and  lovinglie  kissed 
her."  Thereupon  the  lady  doubled  the  be- 
nevolence, paying  him  a  second  £20,  either, 
as  the  Chronicler  remarks,  "  because  she  es- 
teemed the  kiss  of  a  king  so  precious  a  jewele" 
or  "because  the  flavour  of  his  breath  did  so 
comfort  her  stomach."  Such  was  a  fifteenth- 
century  conception  of  royal  courtesy.1 

Upon  Edward's  death  in  1483,  the  crown 
for  a  moment  rested  on  the  head  of  his  young 

i 1  Dowell,  Taxation  and  Taxes,  197. 


216  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

son,  Edward  V,  only  to  be  snatched  away 
Richard  m,  in  favor  of  the  lad's  uncle  Richard  III.    Rich- 

«  4Q2      lilQC 

ard  received  from  Parliament  in  1484  a  grant 
of  tunnage  and  poundage  and  the  subsidy  on 
wool  for  life.1  His  death  on  Bosworth  Field 
the  next  year  gave  the  world  no  opportunity 
to  see  what  use  he  would  make  of  the  freedom 
which  Parliament  thus  gave  him. 

During  the  brief  three  years  of  Richard's 
ascendancy,  however,  there  occurred  an  asser- 
tion of  right  and  its  complementary  statute 
which  assume  great  importance  in  the  light  of 
Prohibition  later  events.     When  Richard  was  invited  to 

of  benevo- 
lences,       become  king,   he  was   presented  with   a  re- 

1  4  ft  4. 

markable  address,  which,  among  other  things, 
cited  the  benevolences  of  the  late  reign  as 
"extorcions,  .  .  .  agenst  the  Lawes  of  God 
and  Man,"  and  as  more  intolerable  than 
"  jopardye  of  deth."  2  At  his  only  Parliament, 

1  6  Rot.  Pad.  238-240. 

2  "For  certainly  wee  be  determined  rather  to  aventure  and 
committe  us  to  the  perill  of  oure  lyfs  and  jopardye  of  deth,  than 
to  lyve  in  suche  thraldome  and  bondage  as  we  have  lyved  long 
tyme  heretofore,  oppressed  and  injured  by  Extorcions  and 
newe  Imposicons,  agenst  the  Lawes  of  God  and  Man,  and  the 
Libertee,  old  Police,  and  Lawes  of  this  Reame,  wheryn  every 
Englishman  is  enherited."    6  Rot.  Parl.  241. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  217 

held  in  1484,  benevolences  were  declared  un- 
lawful, and  were  to  be  "dampned  and  an- 
nulled forever."  * 

Henry  VII,  the  first  of  the  Tudors,  ascended  The 

Tudors 

the  throne  upon  the  successful  issue  of  the 
battle  of  Bosworth.  The  wonder  of  the  era 

1 1  Rich.  Ill,  c.  2. — "  The  king  remembering  how  the  Com- 
mons of  this  his  realm  by  new  and  unlawful  inventions  and 
inordinate  covetousness,  against  the  law  of  this  realm,  have 
been  put  to  great  thraldom  and  importable  charges  and  exac- 
tions, and  in  especial  by  a  new  imposition  named  a  benevo- 
lence, whereby  divers  years  the  subjects  and  Commons  of  this 
land  against  their  wills  and  freedom  have  paid  great  sums  of 
money  to  their  almost  utter  destruction;  for  divers  and  many 
worshipful  men  of  this  realm  by  occasion  thereof  were  com- 
pelled by  necessity  to  break  up  their  households  and  to  live 
in  great  penury  and  wretchedness.  Their  debts  unpaid  and 
their  children  unpreferred,  and  such  memorials  as  they  had 
ordained  to  be  done  for  the  wealth  of  their  souls  were  made 
void  and  annulled,  to  the  great  displeasure  of  God  and  to  the 
destruction  of  this  realm;  therefore  the  king  will  it  be  ordained, 
by  the  advice  and  assent  of  his  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal 
and  the  Commons  of  this  present  Parliament  assembled,  and 
by  the  authority  of  the  same,  that  his  subjects  and  the  com- 
monalty of  this  his  realm  from  henceforth  in  no  wise  be 
charged  by  none  such  charge  or  imposition  called  benevolence, 
nor  by  such  like  charge ;  and  that  such  exactions  called  benev- 
olences, afore  this  time  taken  be  taken  for  no  example  to 
make  such  or  any  like  charge  of  any  his  said  subjects  of  this 
realm  hereafter,  but  it  be  dampned  and  annulled  forever." 
2  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  478.  Translation  given  in  Adams  and 
Stephens,  SeL  Doc.  212. 


218  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

which  he  introduced  lies  not  in  any  increase 
in  the  powers  of  Parliament,  but  rather  that 
they  existed  at  all  when  the  period  closed. 
The  one  hundred  and  twenty  years  of  the 
Tudor  epoch  exhibits  no  progress  toward  the 
realization  of  parliamentary  supremacy;  on 
the  other  hand,  the  trend  was  in  the  opposite 
direction.  The  Tudors  were  not  tyrannical 
enough  to  rouse  opposition  to  the  fever  heat 
as  did  John;  they  knew  rather  how  to  bridle 
their  despotism  in  time  to  check  revolt,  and 
especially  how  to  make  unlawful  acts  assume 
the  aspect  of  legality.  Furthermore,  the  im- 
mense activity  of  commerce,  the  progress  of 
literature,  the  religious  reconstitution  during 
the  sixteenth  century,  were  in  themselves  rea- 
sons for  slow  advance  in  matters  of  govern- 
ment; the  stress  of  trade  consequent  upon  the 
discovery  of  a  new  world,  the  absorbing  in- 
terest in  new  subjects  for  thought,  the  inten- 
sity and  magnitude  of  new  religious  concep- 
tions, engaged  the  minds  of  men  on  subjects 
other  than  those  of  Parliament  and  king.  As 
long  as  these  worked  in  apparent  harmony 
and  the  results  did  not  greatly  offend,  men 
were  content  to  let  well  enough  alone.  So  it 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  219 

was  that  the  Tudors,  surrounding  themselves 
with  a  new  nobility  attached  to  the  throne  by 
reasons  of  their  very  origin  and  continuance, 
were  able  to  follow  their  own  devices  and  raise 
money  almost  as  seemed  to  them  good. 

In  all  the  twenty-four  years  of  Henry 
VIFs  reign  he  called  Parliament  only  seven 
times,  and  six  of  the  seven  Parliaments  sat 
within  the  first  eleven  years  of  his  kingship. 
Each  was  the  occasion  of  a  demand  for  money. 
At  his  first  Parliament,  that  of  1485,  he  received 
a  grant  of  tunnage  and  poundage  and  a  subsidy 
on  wool  for  life.1  Three  years  later,  however, 

the  consequences  of  heavy  taxation  were  disas-  mentsof 

*  Henry  VH 

trous.  Need  arising  for  the  enlistment  of  an  The  "new- 
army  with  which  to  aid  the  Duke  of  Brittany 
against  the  King  of  France,  a  tax  was  devised 
which  not  only  exacted  a  tenth  of  incomes 
from  freeholders,  but  applied  as  well  to  mov- 
ables, laying  imposition  upon  articles  used 
in  trade  and  even  merchants'  stocks.  This 
"new-found  subsidy"  proved  so  intolerable 
to  the  lower  classes  that  a  great  insurrection 
broke  out  in  the  north  against  it.2  The  king 
with  Tudor  wisdom,  remitted  some  £48,000 
i  6  Rot.  Parl.  335.  »  6  Rot.  Parl.  421. 


220  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

of  the  ,£75,000  which  the  tax  was  designed  to 
raise,  and  Parliament  gave  him  in  return  a 
fifteenth  and  tenth.  In  1497,  a  similar  re- 
bellion occurred  in  Cornwall  against  a  tax 
levied  for  the  Scotch  War. 

With  these  examples  of  parliamentary  tax- 
ation before  him,  Henry  turned  away  to 
fields  at  once  more  profitable  and  less  dan- 
gerous, at  least  in  their  immediate  conse- 
quences. 

He  turned  to  the  old  expedient  of  the  benev- 
olence, despite  the  statute  of  Richard  III 
prohibiting  its  imposition.  The  methods  used 
in  laying  a  benevolence  are  illustrated  in  the 
famous  account  by  Lord  Francis  Bacon  of  the 
dilemma  devised  by  Bishop  Morton,  Henry's 
Chancellor,  "to  raise  up  the  benevolence  to 
a  higher  rate;  and  some  called  it  his  fork 
Morton's  and  some  his  crotch.  For  he  had  couched  an 
article  in  the  instructions  to  the  commissioners 
who  were  to  levy  the  benevolence,  that  if  they 
met  with  any  that  were  sparing,  they  should 
tell  them  that  they  must  needs  have,  because 
they  laid  up;  and  if  they  were  spenders,  they 
must  needs  have,  because  it  was  seen  in  their 
port  and  manner  of  living;  so  neither  kind 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  221 

came  amiss."  *  Parliament,  subservient  to 
the  king,  actually  registered  for  the  moment 
its  approval  of  the  practice  of  levying  benevo- 
lences, when  in  1492  it  passed  the  "Shoring  or 
Under-propping  Act"  making  debts  still  owing 
on  gifts  promised  to  the  king  legally  collectable. 

The  benevolence  was  not  the  only  means 
by  which  the  ingenious  monarch  increased 
his  income.  Like  Edward  IV,  he  revived 
obsolete  statutes  and  rigorously  exacted  fines 
in  consequence  of  every  infraction  of  them; 
but  worse  than  that  was  his  perversion  of 
every  function  of  the  courts  of  law  into  a 
means  of  extortion.  His  odious  instruments 
in  that  work  were  Richard  Empson  and 
Edmund  Dudly  who  later  were  made  to  suffer 
for  the  evil  practices  of  the  father  in  the  reign 
of  the  son.  Beside  these  forms  of  imposition, 
the  king  pushed  to  the  extreme  the  exaction  of 
feudal  dues  accruing  to  the  crown. 

Henry    VIII    succeeded    to    the    crown    in  Henry 
1509.     With  his  hand  always  on  the  pulse  of  vni's 

early 

the  nation,  he  knew  when  he  could  carry  his  taxation 
designs    into    execution    and   when    he    must 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  298,  quoting  from 
Lord  Bacon's  Henry  VII,  121. 


222 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


Cardinal 
Wolsey's 
breach  of 
privilege, 
1523 


wait  for  a  fever  to  subside.  His  attitude  to- 
ward taxation  was  not  characterized  by  the 
same  uniform  regard  for  constitutional  formal- 
ities that  distinguished  his  other  acts,  nor  was 
Parliament  on  the  other  hand  quite  as  subser- 
vient to  his  will  as  in  matters  farther  from  their 
purses.  His  first  Parliament  showed  its  trust 
in  him  by  granting  tunnage  and  poundage 
for  life,  but  with  the  distinct  provision  that 
it  be  not  taken  into  precedent.  Beside  this, 
the  Parliaments  of  1513  and  1514  made  gener- 
ous grants  of  a  poll-tax,  of  a  fifteenth  and 
tenth  and  of  two  subsidies  of  six  pence  in  the 
pound.1  Despite  the  magnitude  of  the  grant, 
no  opposition  seems  to  have  been  provoked, 
an  unfailing  sign  of  increasing  wealth. 

At  the  Parliament  of  1523,  the  first  since 
1515,  Cardinal  Wolsey  committed  a  distinct 
breach  of  Parliamentary  privilege.  Under 
Henry  IV  it  had  been  admitted  by  the  king 
that  both  houses  of  Parliament  were  to  com- 
mune apart,  and  that  the  king  should  have  no 

1  For  further  details  see  Dowell,  1  Taxation  and  Taxes,  129, 
130.  A  summary  of  the  taxes  of  Henry  VIII  is  given  in  Cob- 
bett,  1  Parliamentary  History  of  England  from  the  Earliest 
Period  to  the  Year  1803,  London  1806;  565-6. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  223 

knowledge  of  the  progress  of  a  grant  until  the 
two  houses  be  of  one  accord.1  Wolsey,  as 
representative  of  the  royal  power,  reversed 
the  usual  process.  Going  into  the  House  of 
Commons  with  all  his  following,  "with  his 
maces,  his  pillars,  his  pole-axes,  his  cross, 
his  hatte,  and  the  great  scale  too,"  —  in  the 
words  of  the  speaker,  Sir  Thomas  More,  — 
he  asked  for  no  less  than  £800,000  and  re- 
quired that  it  be  paid  in  four  years;  he  sug- 
gested that  it  "be  raised  out  of  the  fifth  part 
of  every  man's  goods  and  lands." 

To  the  demand  of  the  cardinal  the  com- 
mons maintained  perfect  silence.  The  speaker 
"with  many  probable  arguments  endeavoured 
to  shew  the  cardinal  that  his  manner  of  com- 
ing thither  was  neither  expedient  nor  agreeable 
to  the  ancient  liberties  of  that  House."  2 
Wolsey  thereupon  departed  in  a  rage.  The 
next  day  the  matter  was  argued  by  the  com- 
mons and  the  contention  was  made  that 
"though  some  men  were  well-monied,  yet 
in  general  it  was  known  that  the  fifth  of  men's 

i  Above,  206,  207. 

8  More,  Life  of  Sir  T.  More,  51,  quoted  in  1  Par/.  Hist. 
485-6. 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


Henry's 
commis- 
sions and 
benevo- 
lences 


goods  was  not  in  plate  or  money,  but  in 
stock  and  cattle.  And  that  to  pay  away  all 
their  coin  would  alter  the  whole  frame  and 
intercourse  of  things."  1  For  fifteen  days 
the  commons  debated  the  question  and  at  the 
end  of  that  time  granted  to  the  king  a  grad- 
uated property  tax,  much  smaller  in  amount 
and  covering  four  years  in  the  payment.  Wol- 
sey's  displeasure  was  very  great  and  he  made 
a  second  journey  to  the  commons  in  the  hope 
that  he  might  induce  them  to  be  more  gen- 
erous. He  told  them  that  he  "desired  to  rea- 
son with  those  who  opposed  his  demands." 
He  was  answered  that  "it  was  the  order  of  that 
House  to  hear,  and  not  to  reason  but  amongst 
themselves."  2  Thus  rebuffed,  the  cardinal 
went  away. 

Henry  did  without  Parliament  for  the  next 
seven  years,  but  he  was  not  deprived  thereby 
of  money  with  which  to  carry  on  the  business 
of  government.  In  1526,  commissions  were 
issued  for  the  collection  of  a  sixth  from  the 
goods  of  the  laity  and  a  fourth  from  the 
clergy.3  The  people  immediately  evinced 


i  1  Pad  Hist.  486. 
s  1  Part.  Hist.  490. 


2  1  Parl.  Hist.  588. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION 

their  knowledge  of  the  law  and  complained 
that  the  proceedings  were  illegal;  the  clergy 
led  the  movement  asserting  that  "the  King 
could  take  no  man's  goods  without  the  author- 
ity of  Parliament."  *  The  people  began  to 
murmur  and  insurrection  seemed  imminent. 
"If  men  should  geue  their  goodes  by  a  Com- 
mission," they  said,  "then  wer  it  worse  than 
the  taxes  of  Fraunce,  and  so  England  should 
be  bond  and  not  free."  2  In  Suffolk  rebellion 
actually  broke  out;  in  London  and  in  Kent 
the  people  were  in  a  ferment.  Henry,  being 
what  he  was  and  knowing  the  nature  of  his 
subjects,  eased  the  tension  by  shoving  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  measure  on  to  the  shoulders 
of  Wolsey,3  and  declared  that  he  would  receive 
no  money  save  as  an  "amiable  graunte," 
which  was  collected  in  1528,  and  was  nothing 
more  agreeable  than  a  benevolence.  To  this 
the  citizens  of  London  raised  objection  on 
the  ground  of  the  statute  of  Richard  III.  The 
judges  thereupon  handed  down  an  opinion 
that  that  statute,  being  the  work  of  an  usurper, 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  300. 

2  Ibid,  300,  quoting  Hall,  Chronicle,  696,  700. 
s  1  Pad.  Hist.  490. 


226  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

was  void.  Thus  did  the  courts  evince  their 
subservience  to  the  crown,  and  showed  them- 
selves as  open  to  royal  influence  as  the  tribu- 
nals of  the  Stuarts  a  hundred  years  later.1 
So  in  theory  Henry's  attempt  at  arbitrary 
taxation  was  frustrated;  in  practice,  however, 
the  imposition,  though  its  burden  was  trans- 
ferred from  the  turbulent  lower  classes  to  the 
more  amenable  people  of  substance,  merely 
underwent  a  change  of  name.  The  exaction 
was  unparliamentary  whether  it  was  levied 
as  a  king's  tax  or  under  the  thin  guise  of  a 
benevolence. 
Forced  But  Henry  had  other  strings  to  his  bow,  and 


]*22  of  these  the  forced  loan  was  one  which  served 
and  1544 

him  well.  In  1522  commissioners  were  ap- 
pointed throughout  the  kingdom  to  ascertain 
the  value  of  every  man's  possessions  and  to 
require  a  certain  part  for  the  king,  on  the 
understanding  that  they  be  repaid  out  of  the 
grants  from  the  next  Parliament.  The  prom- 
ise of  repayment  was  under  the  king's  privy 
seal.2  In  1544,  forced  loans  were  again  ex- 

1  Henry  levied  another  benevolence  in  1545. 

2  The  form  of  these  royal  promissory  notes  is  as  follows:  —  - 
"We,  Henry  VHI,  by  the  grace  of  God,  King  of  England  and 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  227 

acted,  this  time  from  all  persons  rated  at  £50 
and  more  per  annum.  Parliament,  subservi- 
ent to  the  king,  far  from  protesting  because 
of  these  arbitrary  demands  upon  the  pockets 
of  the  people,  in  two  instances  released  the 
king  from  liability  to  payment.  In  1529, 
Parliament  "for  themselves  and  all  the  whole 
body  of  the  realm  which  they  represent, 
freely,  liberally,  and  absolutely,  give  and 
grant  unto  the  King's  highness  ...  all  and 
every  sum  and  sums  of  money  which  to  them 
and  every  of  them,  is,  ought,  or  might  be  due 
by  reason  of  any  money  .  .  .  advanced  or 
paid  by  way  of  trust  or  loan."  l  This  caused 
much  murmuring,  but,  as  Hall's  Chronicle 
rightly  puts  it,  "Ther  was  no  remedy."  In 
1544  a  similar  act  of  a  servile  Parliament  not 

of  France,  Defender  of  Faith,  and  Lord  of  Ireland,  promise 
by  these  presents  truly  to  content  and  repay  unto  our  trusty 

and  well-beloved  subject,  A.  B.,  the  sum  of ,  which  he 

hath  lovingly  advanced  unto  us  by  way  of  loan,  for  defence  of 
our  realm,  and  maintenance  of  our  wars  against  France  and 
Scotland:  In  witness  whereof  we  have  caused  our  privy 

seal  hereunto  to  be  set  and  annexed  the day  of ,  the 

fourteenth  year  of  our  reign."  Cited  by  Hallam,  1  Const.  Hist. 
Eng.  26,  note  1.  from  MS.  Instructions  to  Commissioners. 

1  Stat.  21  Henry  VIII,  c.  24,  cited   in   Taswell-Langmead, 
Eng.  Const.  Hist.  301.    1  Part.  Hist.  507. 


228  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

only  gives  the  king  the  funds  borrowed  under 
the  forced  loan  of  1542,  but  commands  the 
refunding  of  sums  already  paid  by  him  to  his 
creditors  in  discharge  of  debts  so  incurred.1 
Profits  of  The  Reformation  in  England  redounded 
lish  Refl  t°  tne  financial  benefit  of  the  Crown.  In 
ormation  1532  the  clergy  were  relieved  by  act  of 
Parliament  from  the  payment  of  annates 
or  first  fruits,  the  sums  which  the  ordain- 
ing authorities  exacted  from  those  accorded 
any  preferment  in  the  church,  and  which 
amounted  sometimes  to  as  much  as  a  year's 
income  from  the  benefice.  The  exactions 
were  denounced  as  having  risen  by  "an  un- 
charitable custom,  grounded  upon  no  just 
or  good  title,"  and  through  them  "great  and 
inestimable  sums  of  money  have  been  daily 
conveyed  out  of  this  realm,  to  the  impoverish- 
ment of  the  same,  and  to  the  advantage  of 
the  court  of  Rome."  2  The  same  Parliament, 
meeting  for  its  fifth  session  on  the  15th  Jan- 
uary, 1533-4,  reenacted  the  statute  without 
the  contingencies  which  had  conditioned  the 

1  1  Parl  Hist.  560,  578. 

2  23  Henry  VIII,  c.  20,  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Sel.  Doc. 
144. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  229 

other.1  Closely  following  came  a  statute 
that  deprived  the  Pope  of  his  petty  exac- 
tions which  for  generations  he  had  drawn 
from  the  English  Church.  Thus  were  dis- 
continued peter-pence,  procurations,  fruits, 
fees  for  dispensations,  licenses,  faculties  and 
grants.2  The  sixth  session  of  this  Parliament, 
meeting  at  the  end  of  the  year  1534,  turned 
the  procedure  into  comedy  by  attaching  to 
"the  King's  imperial  crown  forever"  the  first- 
fruits  and  tenths  of  the  annual  income  of  all 
ecclesiastical  benefices,  the  very  payments 
which  it  had  declared  to  be  in  conformity 
with  an  "uncharitable  custom."  s 

Furthermore,    at    the    session    of    1533-4,  Pariia- 
Parliament  had  laid  very  definite  restrictions  ^^ 

upon  the  clergy  in  the  matter  of  regular  taxa-  authority 

m  •  i  c  i 

tion.4     Since  the  early  part  or  the  fourteenth 

century,  indeed,  almost  since  the  beginning 
of  Parliament  itself,  the  lesser  clergy  had 
attended  the  sessions  with  great  irregularity, 
and  had  voted  their  taxes  for  the  most  part  in 
provincial  assemblies.  Now,  however,  came 
the  general  prohibition  that  the  clergy  should 

i  25  Henry  VIII,  c.  20.  2  25  Henry  VIII,  c.  21. 

»  26  Henry  VIII,  c.  3.  *  25  Henry  VIII,  c.  19. 


230  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

not  enact  or  execute  ordinances  binding  upon 
themselves  without  the  king's  license  and  with- 
out his  approval  when  once  they  were  made. 
Included  within  the  meaning  of  this  prohibi- 
tion was  the  granting  of  taxes.  From  thence- 
forward until  the  time  of  Charles  II,  when, 
without  any  special  enactment  but  by  simple 
process  of  evolution,  the  clergy  began  to  be 
taxed  in  the  same  manner  and  according  to 
the  same  rate  as  the  laity,  clerical  grants 
were  submitted  to  Parliament  for  comfirma- 
tion. 

Henry  VIII  died  in  1547.  Notwithstanding 
the  heavy  taxation,  parliamentary  and  unpar- 
liamentary, which  had  been  exacted  during 
his  reign,  he  remained  popular  with  the  great 
majority  of  his  subjects  to  his  death.  His 
many  vices  were  counterbalanced  by  his  suc- 
cessful wars,  the  heavy  taxation  by  the  growing 
trade  of  England,  and  his  semi-independence 
of  Parliament  by  most  efficient  administra- 
tion. 

Elizabeth's  After  the  lapse  of  eleven  years,  which  in  so 
far  as  they  concern  the  evolution  of  the  tax- 
ing power  of  Parliament,  composed  in  effect 
an  interregnum,  Elizabeth  succeeded  to  the 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  231 

throne  of  England.  Elizabeth's  government 
was  a  despotism  and  was  illegal;  but  it  was 
so  by  sufferance,  not  because  the  nation  was 
ignorant  of  its  true  character  or  because  the 
people  were  unable  to  control  it.  When  in 
later  years  the  attempt  was  made  to  create  a 
despotism  against  the  voice  of  the  people, 
the  result  was  a  Cromwell  and  his  Charles  I. 
Queen  Elizabeth  was  loved  by  her  subjects 
and  they  put  their  trust  in  her.  The  sympathy 
existing  between  queen  and  people  could  not 
be  illustrated  better  than  by  the  following 
anecdote,  which  suggests  that  under  her  rule 
benevolences  were  really  made  with  the  good 
will  of  the  givers. 

The  queen,  being  at  Coventry,  is  presented 
by  the  mayor  with  a  purse  heavily  filled  with 
gold. 

"I  have  few  such  gifts,  Mr.  Mayor,"  says 
the  queen;  "it  is  a  hundred  pounds  in  gold!" 

"Please,  your  grace,"  the  mayor  answers, 
"it  is  a  great  deal  more  we  give  you." 

"What  is  it  ?"  asks  the  queen. 

"It  is,"  the  mayor  replies,  "the  hearts  of 
your  loving  subjects." 

And  the  queen  makes  answer,  "We  thank 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

you,   Mr.   Mayor;   it   is   a  great   deal   more 

indeed."1 

Liberality  Subsidies  were  granted  in  Parliament  with 
beth's*Par-  liberality  and  readiness.  Forced  loans  were 
liaments  indeed  exacted  from  the  wealthy,  but  Eliza- 

Her  extra-    ,       .  i  i  i  i 

Pariiamen-  ketn   took  care   to  repay  honorably  and  as 

tary  exac-  promptly  as  she  could.  A  means  of  revenue 
tions  .  . 

which  relieved  her  from  the  frequent  necessity 

of  applying  to  Parliament  was  the  granting 
of  monopolies,  based  upon  the  right  of  the 
crown  to  assure  to  an  inventor  or  orginator 
the  exclusive  benefits  of  his  invention  or 
innovation.  By  1601,  however,  the  royal 
power  had  encroached  so  far  upon  the  rights 
of  the  individual  that  the  grants  of  monopoly 
comprised  exclusive  control  over  many  of  the 
necessaries  of  life.  The  list  which  was  read  in 
the  House  of  Commons  in  1601,  included:  — 
currants,  iron,  powder,  cards,  transportation 
of  leather,  vinegar,  sea-coal,  lead,  oil,  starch, 
glass,  and  even  salt.  The  matter  had  been 
first  discussed  in  the  Parliament  of  1571,  was 
brought  up  again  in  1597,  and  in  1601  Eliza- 
beth with  the  tact  which  she  could  summon 

1  Dowell,  1  Taxation  and  Taxes,  202,  quoting  2  Mackintosh, 
433,  appendix. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  233 

on  occasion,  sent  a  message  to  the  House  to 
allay  if  possible  the  agitation  which  was  going 
on  there  over  the  subject  of  monopolies.  It 
gave  satisfaction.  "Understanding  that  divers 
patents"  so  ran  the  message,  "which  she  had 
granted  had  been  grievous  to  her  subjects, 
some  should  be  presently  repealed,  some 
superseded,  and  none  put  in  execution  but 
such  as  should  first  have  a  trial  according  to 
the  law  for  the  good  of  the  people."  l  Thus 
was  this  means  of  indirect  taxation  by  the 
crown  done  away  with,  until  the  time  when 
James  I,  putting  his  clumsy  shoulder  to  the 
wheel,  should  seek  to  introduce  it  again. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  Commons 
there  was  another  evidence  of  the  growing  ^rf^to  * 
realization  on  the  part  of  the  commons  that  originate 

,  ,  i        •  i      money 

their  powers  were  not  to  be  tampered  with.  biUs>  1593 
In  this  instance,  the  vindication  was  not 
against  the  prerogative  of  the  sovereign,  but 
against  an  arrogation  of  power  on  the  part  of 
the  House  of  Lords.  The  incident  was  based 
upon  the  decreasing  liberality  of  the  commons 
in  the  years  after  the  Armada.  They  had  risen 

i  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  377,  quoting  4  Parl. 
Hist.  480. 


234  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

nobly  to  the  defense  of  the  nation  against  the 
peril,  but,  with  the  passing  of  it,  their  generosity 
had  faded.  In  1593,  it  was  represented  that, 
though  the  queen  had  spent  upon  the  war 
some  £1,030,000  of  her  own,  the  grants  of  the 
commons  persisted  in  being  inadequate.  A 
message  was  sent  down  from  the  lords  which 
remarked  upon  the  need  for  a  supply  and 
requested  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of 
conference.  Sir  Robert  Cecil,  reporting  from 
the  committee,  stated  that  the  lords  would 
assent  to  no  smaller  grant  than  three  entire 
subsidies.1  The  commons,  on  the  other  hand, 
had  shown  a  disposition  to  grant  no  more  than 
two.  Francis  Bacon  stated  the  issue.  He 
yielded  to  the  subsidy,  "but  disliked,"  he  said, 
"that  this  house  should  join  with  the  upper 
house  in  granting  it.  For  the  custom  and 
privilege  of  this  house  hath  always  been, 
first  to  make  offer  of  the  subsidies  from  hence, 
then  to  the  upper  house;  except  it  were  that 
they  present  a  bill  unto  this  house,  with  desire 
of  our  assent  thereto,  and  then  to  send  it  up 

1  The  subsidy  at  this  time,  by  a  conservative  estimate, 
amounted  probably  to  £80,000,  making  the  demand  equal  to 
£240,000. 


EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY  EXACTION  235 

again."  *  The  commons  refused  to  have 
further  conference  with  the  lords,  so  deter- 
mined were  they  to  vindicate  their  right  to 
originate  money  bills,  by  the  vote  217  to  128. 
Notwithstanding  this  scrupulous  adherence 
to  principle,  they  accepted  the  suggestion  and 
came  forward  with  a  grant  of  three  subsidies, 
six  tenths  and  six  fifteenths. 

The  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth  in  1603, 
brought  to  an  end  the  Tudor  period  and 
cleared  the  throne  for  James  Stuart.  The 
Tudor  era  was  one  which  can  be  passed  lightly 
over  in  a  strict  account  of  progress  toward 
parliamentary  supremacy  in  taxation.  In  such 
a  study  the  period  of  the  Tudors  is  a  bywater. 
Yet  the  fact  that  the  principles  enunciated  in 
the  years  prior  to  their  accession  stayed  alive 
despite  the  attacks  of  Tudor  subtlety,  points 
to  a  vitality  sufficient  to  down  the  Stuarts,  and 
to  establish  permanent  parliamentary  control 
over  the  laying  of  taxes. 

1 1  Hallam,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  375,  quoting  D'Ewes,  486. 


VII 

THE  STUARTS:  1603-1689 

Divine         THE  theory    of   divine   right,    by   which   the 

right  as         0  . 

against        Stuarts  laid  claim  to  a  sovereignty  as  irrespon- 

Pariia-        sible  as  it  was  far-reaching,  in  practice  came 

men  tar  y  '  r 

supremacy  into  direct  conflict  with  another  theory  which 
had  been  taking  shape  for  some  four  centuries, 
the  supremacy  of  Parliament.  In  the  field  of 
taxation  the  issue  is  scarcely  less  apparent. 
Parliament  asserted  the  supremacy  of  its 
will  over  all  kinds  of  taxes,  indirect  as  well 
as  direct.  The  crown,  on  the  other  hand, 
hesitating  to  close  with  the  representatives  of 
the  people  over  a  question  of  their  authority 
in  direct  taxation,  maintained  that  unchecked 
royal  power  extended  to  indirect  taxes,  includ- 
ing duties  at  the  ports.  Furthermore,  the 
crown,  whenever  occasion  arose,  sought  to 
elude  the  hold  of  Parliament  upon  direct 
taxation,  by  resorting  to  the  familar  resources 
of  benevolences  and  the  sale  of  monopolies, 
and  at  last  to  the  levy  of  ship  money. 


THE  STUARTS  237 

With  the  issue  so  direct,  the  great  question 
was  that  of  strength.  Should  the  crown  with 
its  array  of  adherents,  upholding  as  their  ideal 
the  perfect  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogative, 
prove  itself  stronger  than  the  House  of  Com- 
mons ?  Or  were  the  commons  to  prevail,  stand- 
ing for  the  principle  that  the  representatives  of 
the  people  sitting  in  Parliament  should  have 
complete  control  over  the  public  purse  ? 

James  Stuart,  swollen  with  intellectual  pride, 
was,  according  to  the  Due  de  Sully,  "the  wisest  1603-1625 
fool  in  Europe."  Worse  than  his  vanity  were 
his  unsteadiness  and  his  insincerity,  traceable, 
perhaps,  to  the  Italian-Gallic  stock  whence 
he  was  bred.1  Divine  right,  a  doctrine  by  its 
nature  offensive  to  Englishmen,  was  in  him 
doubly  hateful  because  he  was  not  born  king, 
but  was  proclaimed  by  the  Council,  an  act 
ratified,  however,  by  popular  voice,  and  subse- 
quently acquiesced  in  by  Parliament.2  In  the 
matter  of  religion,  he  was  not  more  agreeable ; 
suspected  at  times  of  plots  to  further  Roman 
Catholicism,  he  assumed  toward  the  Puritans 
especial  animosity,  they  standing  in  his  mind 

1  Gneist.  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  546. 

3  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  177. 


238  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

not  so  much  as  preachers  of  religion  as  propa- 
gandists of  republicanism. 
James  I  He  wasted  no  time  in  getting  things  started. 

dictates  . 

the  com-     In  the  proclamation  by  which  he  summoned 
P°slti°nof    his  first  Parliament,  he  assumed  the  power  of 

the  Com- 
mons, 1604  dictating  what  manner  of  men  should  compose 

it,  and  directed  that  his  Court  of  Chancery 
should  decide  whether  or  not  the  certificates  of 
election  fulfilled  the  royal  conditions,  "and 
if  any  shall  be  found  to  be  made  contrarie  to 
this  proclamation,  the  same  is  to  be  rejected 
as  unlawful  and  insufficient."  J  The  com- 
mons, however,  shortly  after  their  convening, 
vindicated  their  privilege  in  the  case  of  Good- 
win and  Fortescue,  and  succeeded  in  main- 
taining thereafter  their  right  to  decide  upon 
the  legality  of  returns.2  In  their  "Apology 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  made  to  the  king, 
touching  their  Privileges,"  nearly  at  the  close 
of  this  session,  the  commons  complained 
against  the  monopolies  possessed  by  the  great 
trading  companies  in  the  face  of  many  statutes 

1 1  Parliamentary  History  of  England,  London,  1806,  967, 
970. 

2  The  case  is  in  1  Part,  Hist.  998-1017.  See  also  Taswell- 
Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  267-268. 


THE  STUARTS  239 

to  the  contrary,  and  the  oppressive  exercise 
of  the  ancient  prerogative  of  purveyance.1 

In  the  department  of  regular  taxation,  how-  James 
ever,    James   at  first   adopted   a   conciliatory  J^JJe* 
attitude.     On    the    26th    June,    1604,    James  and 

i  .        poundage 

sent  to  the  commons  a  letter  written  with  for  i£fe 
his  own  hand  but  corrected  as  to  the  spelling," 
in  which  he  expressed  his  pleasure  as  to  a 
subsidy.2  He  stated  his  confidence  in  their 
good-will,  assuring  them  "in  the  word  of  a 
King"  that  he  would  "be  so  far  from  taking 
it  unkindly,  their  not  offering"  to  him  a 
subsidy,  and  that  he  would  "only  interpret 
it  to  proceed  from  the  care  they  have,  that 
our  people  should  not  have  any  occasion  of 
distaste."  James's  letter  accomplished  for 
him  what  may  well  have  been  his  purpose; 
the  commons  immediately  granted  to  him  tun- 
nage  and  poundage  for  the  space  of  his  life.3 

i  1  Part.  Hist.  1030-1042. 

*  1  Ibid.  1044-1045. 

3  The  rate  of  this  grant  of  tunnage  and  poundage:  Tun- 
nage,  3  s.  on  every  tun  of  wine  imported,  save  that  on  the  tun 
of  sweet  wines  the  charge  was  6s.,  and  on  the  awm  of  Rhen- 
ish, 1  s.  Poundage,  1  s.  on  every  20  s.  of  goods  or  merchan- 
dise imported  or  exported,  except  woolen  manufactures;  on 
tin  and  pewter  the  charge  was  2  s.  Wool  of  denizens,  33  s. 


240  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Royal  At  the  two  subsequent  sessions  of  1605-6 

and  1606-7  there  was  constant  friction  between 
king  and  commons,  yet  there  were  no  very 
remarkable  assertions  of  royal  prerogative  or 
of  parliamentary  privilege.  At  the  session  of 
1605,  Parliament  granted  the  king  three  entire 
subsidies  and  six  fifteenths,  designed  princi- 
pally to  meet  the  royal  indebtedness,  some  of 
which  held  over  since  the  time  of  Elizabeth.1 
After  the  prorogation,  James  called  no  session 
of  Parliament  until  the  9th  February,  1609-10. 

But  James  could  not  meet  his  obligations 
with  the  ordinary  revenues  of  the  crown.  He 
was  spending  between  £500,000  and  £600,000 
a  year,  and  his  income  was  in  the  neighborhood 
of  ,£400,000;  his  annual  deficit,  therefore,  was 
not  far  from  £150,000.2  James  was  obliged 
to  turn  elsewhere,  and  the  consequence  of  his 
action  was  the  famous  Bate  Case,  the  decision 
in  which  was  a  step  toward  freeing  the  king 
from  parliamentary  control  over  his  revenues. 

In  1603,  in  answer  to  the  agitation  against 

4  d.  on  the  sack  or  240  woolfells  and  £3,  6  s.,  8  d.  on  the  last 
of  hides.  —  1  Parl.  Hist.  1046. 

1  1  Parl.  Hist.  1069-1070. 

2  Trevelyan,  England  Under  the  Stuarts,  107. 


THE  STUARTS  241 

the  great  monopolies,  an  Eastern  trading  com-  The  Bate 
pany,  known  as  the  Levant  Company,  sur-  ase 
rendered  its  charter.  This  company,  amongst 
other  privileges,  had  enjoyed  the  right  of  col- 
lecting a  duty  on  currants  from  other  mer- 
chants trading  in  them,  and  paid  to  the  crown 
in  return  for  the  franchise  ,£4,000  a  year. 
When,  therefore,  the  company  yielded  up  its 
charter,  the  crown  was  the  loser  by  .£4,000 
annually.  In  order  to  make  up  for  the  loss, 
the  crown  itself  proceeded  to  lay  a  duty  on  cur- 
rants.1 In  1605,  the  Levant  Company  again 
received  a  charter,  but  James  levied  upon  it, 
nevertheless,  his  duty  on  currants,  the  rate  be- 
ing five  shillings  on  the  hundred-weight  over 
and  above  that  granted  to  him  by  Parliament 
in  its  tunnage  and  poundage  bill.  It  was  a 
merchant  of  the  Levant  Company,  John  Bate, 
who  raised  the  question  of  the  legality  of  the 
imposition.  The  case  was  taken  to  the  Court 
of  Exchequer  for  decision.  Had  the  barons 
confined  themselves  to  the  strict  laws  of  the 
matter,  there  would  not  have  been  great  ground 
for  objection  to  their  decision.  Precedent 
drawn  from  the  time  of  the  Tudors  and  stat- 

i  Medley,  Eng.  Canst.  Hist.  235. 


242  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

utes  of  the  same  period,  were  capable  of  being 
brought  forward  in  a  fair  adjudication  of  the 
case,  and  would  have  substantiated  the  conten- 
tion of  the  crown,  thus  returning  customs  exac- 
tions, nearly  to  the  situation  of  1300.1  The  fact 
that  the  four  barons  decided  the  case  unani- 
mously against  John  Bate  could  not,  therefore, 
be  reasonably  reprehended.  But  they  per- 
mitted themselves  to  slip  off  into  philosophical 
generalizations  which  struck  the  people  as 
absolutist  in  tenor. 

Opinions          "It  seemeth   to  me  strange,"   says  Baron 
Barons        Clarke    in   his    opinion,    "that    any   subjects 

in  the         would   contend  with   the  King  in   this  high 
Bate  Case  .  .  .    .  .  . 

point  of  prerogative.  ...    As  it  is  not  a  king- 
dom without  subjects  and  government,  so  he 
is  not   a  king  without  revenues.  .  .  .     The 

revenue  of  the  Crown  is  the  very  essential  part 
of  the  Crown,  and  he  who  rendeth  that  from 
the  king  pulleth  also  his  crown  from  his  head, 
for  it  cannot  be  separated  from  the  crown." 
He  proceeded  to  advance  the  opinion  that  the 
Statute  of  Edward  III 2  which  prohibited  to 

1  Prothero,  Statutes  and  Constitutional  Documents,   1559- 
1625, Ixxv. 

2  Stat.  45  Edw.  Ill,  cap.  4. 


THE  STUARTS  243 

the  crown  the  right  of  levying  new  impositions 
on  wool,  woolfells,  and  leather,  and  which 
provided  that  there  be  only  imposed  "the 
custom  and  subsidy  granted  to  the  king," 
had  no  effect  in  the  present  instance,  because 
it  extended  to  Edward  III  alone,  "and  shall 
not  bind  his  successors,  for  it  is  a  principal 
part  of  the  Crown  of  England  which  the  King 
cannot  diminish." 

The  opinion  of  Chief  Baron  Fleming  was 
scarcely  less  sweeping.  "The  King's  power 
is  double,"  he  said,  "ordinary  and  absolute. 
.  .  .  That  of  the  ordinary  is  for  the  profit  of 
particular  subjects,  for  the  execution  of  civil 
justice  ...  in  the  ordinary  courts,  and  nomi- 
nated .  .  .  with  us  the  common  law ;  and  these 
laws  cannot  be  changed  without  Parlia- 
ment. .  .  .  The  absolute  power  of  the  king 
is  not  that  which  is  converted  or  executed  to 
private  use,  .  .  .  but  is  only  that  which  is  ap- 
plied to  the  general  benefit  of  the  people.  .  .  . 
This  power  is  not  guided  by  the  rules  which 
direct  only  at  the  common  law,  and  is  most 
properly  named  policy  and  government.  .  .  . 
The  matter  in  question  is  material  matter  of 
state,  and  ought  to  be  ruled  by  the  rules  of 


244  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

policy,  and  if  it  be  so,  the  king  hath  done  well 
to  execute  his  extraordinary  power.  All  cus- 
toms, be  they  old  or  new,  are  no  other  but  the 
effects  and  issues  of  trades  and  commerce 
with  foreign  nations;  but  all  commerce  and 
affairs  with  foreigners  .  .  .  are  made  by  the 
absolute  power  of  the  king;  and  he  who  hath 
power  of  causes  hath  power  also  of  effects."  * 
The  posi-  Parliament  took  its  stand  on  the  subject  of 
Parlia-  ^ne  imP°siti°ns  even  before  the  decision  was 
ment  published.  In  the  Petition  of  Grievances 
sent  up  by  the  commons  at  the  end  of  the 
session  of  1606,  a  list  which  contained  so 
many  complaints  that  James  remarked  that 
"they  had  sent  an  oyes  through  the  nation  to 
find  them,"  the  plea  was  made  that  no  such 
duty  could  be  demanded  legally  without  the 
consent  of  Parliament.  The  decision  was 
announced  to  them  when  they  reassembled 
in  November  1606,  but  they  took  no  action 
and  for  a  time  the  matter  rested. 

But  it  was  James  himself  who,  in  his  char- 
acteristic tactless  obstinacy,  forced  the  issue. 
On  the  29th  July,  1608,  taking  advantage  of 

1  The  case  is  reported  in  Prothero,  Stat.  and  Const.  Doc. 
340-342. 


THE  STUARTS  245 

the   Bate   decision,   he  published   under   the  The  Book 
authority  of  the  Great  Seal  his  Book  of  Rates, 
which  laid  heavy  duties  upon  almost  all  ar- 

derision 

tides  of  merchandise,  "to  be  forever  here- in  the 
after  paid  to  the  king  and  his  successors  on 
pain  of  his  displeasure."  l  The  statement  of 
James's  own  views  on  the  subject  could  not 
be  more  clearly  put  than  he  himself  expressed 
them  in  the  commission  for  the  levy  of  the  im- 
positions addressed  to  the  Earl  of  Salisbury, 
Treasurer  of  England.  "This  special  power 
and  prerogative,"  he  asserted,  "  (amongst  many 
others)  hath  both  by  men  of  understanding  in 
all  ages  and  by  the  laws  of  all  nations  been 
yielded  and  acknowledged  to  be  proper  and  in- 
herent in  the  persons  of  princes,  that  they  may 
according  to  their  several  occasions  raise  to 
themselves  such  fit  and  competent  means  by 
levying  of  customs  and  impositions  upon  mer- 
chandise transported  out  of  their  kingdom  or 
brought  into  their  dominions  ...  as  to  their 
wisdoms  and  discretions  may  seem  conven- 
ient." 2 

Even  with  the  money  thus  obtained,  James 

1  2  State  Trials,  481. 

2  Prothero,  Stat.  and  Canst.  Doc.  354. 


246  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

was  obliged  at  last  after  a  lapse  of  nearly 
two  years  and  a  half  to  turn  to  Parliament. 
He  summoned  it  for  the  9th  February  1609-10. 
The  commons,  almost  unanimously  opposed  to 
the  exercise  of  the  royal  prerogative  in  the 
matter  of  the  imposition,  came  prepared  to 
dispute  the  decision  in  the  Bate  Case.  The 
discussion,  carried  on  in  the  face  of  a  royal 
prohibition,  was  managed  by  Hakewill,  Yel- 
verton,  and  Whitelocke.1  The  upshot  was 
Remon-  a  remonstrance  in  which  the  commons  re- 
strance  minded  the  king  that  "the  policy  and  consti- 
Commons,  tution  of  this  your  kingdom  appropriates  unto 
the  kings  of  this  realm,  with  the  assent  of  the 
Parliament,  as  well  the  sovereign  power  of 
making  laws  as  that  of  taxing  or  imposing 
upon  the  subjects'  goods  or  merchandises 
wherein  they  have  justly  such  a  property  as 
may  not  without  their  consent,  be  altered  or 
changed."  Further,  they  pointed  to  the 
former  occasions  when  the  commons  had  com- 
plained in  Parliament  of  similar  impositions, 
and  upon  which  redress  was  forthcoming.  Ref- 
erence was  made  to  the  action  of  "famous 

1  The  arguments  of  Hakewill  and  Whitelocke  are  given  in 
detail  in  Prothero,  Stat.  and  Const.  Doc.  342-353. 


THE  STUARTS  247 

kings,"  who  "agreed  that  this  old  fundamental 
right  should  be  further  declared  and  estab- 
lished by  act  of  Parliament,  wherein  it  is 
provided  that  no  such  charges  should  ever 
be  laid  upon  the  people  without  their  common 
consent,  as  may  appear  by  sundry  records  of 
former  times."  They  went  on  to  say,  "We, 
therefore,  your  Majesty's  most  humble  Com- 
mons assembled  in  Parliament,  following  the 
examples  of  this  worthy  case  of  our  ancestors, 
and  out  of  a  duty  to  those  for  whom  we  serve, 
finding  that  your  Majesty,  without  advice  or 
consent  of  Parliament,  hath  lately,  in  time  of 
peace,  set  both  greater  impositions,  and  far 
more  in  number  than  any  of  your  noble  ances- 
tors did  in  time  of  war,  have  with  all  humility 
presumed  to  present  this  most  just  and  neces- 
sary petition  unto  your  Majesty:  That  all 
impositions  set  without  the  assent  of  Parlia- 
ment may  be  quite  abolished  and  taken  away; 
and  that  your  Majesty,  in  imitation  likewise 
of  your  noble  progenitors,  will  be  pleased  that 
a  law  may  be  made  during  this  session  of 
Parliament  to  declare  that  all  impositions  set 
or  to  be  set,  upon  your  people,  their  goods  and 
merchandises,  save  only  by  common  assent 


248  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

in  the  Parliament,  are  and  shall  be  void."  * 
The  outcome  was  unsatisfactory.  A  bill 
framed  to  prohibit  further  impositions  than 
those  already  in  existence,  was  passed  by  the 
House  of  Commons,  but  was  cast  out  in  the 
upper  chamber.  The  king  was  still  able  to 
cover  himself  with  the  decision  in  the  Bate 
Case. 

Cowel's  The    attitude    of    James    toward    a    book 

preter"  "lately  published  by  one  Doctor  Cowel"  and 
esteemed  to  "contain  certain  matters  of  scan- 
dal and  offence  toward  the  high  court  of 
Parliament,"  2  all  but  brought  him  into  active 
conflict  with  the  commons.  This  publication 
called  "The  Interpreter"  contained  a  defense 
of  the  royal  prerogative  in  such  terms  as  greatly 
to  offend  the  power  of  Parliament.  Doctor 
Cowel  had  this  to  say  under  the  head  of 
"Subsidy:" 

"...  A  tax  or  tribute  assessed  by  Parlia- 
ment, and  granted  by  the  Commons  to  be 
levied  of  every  subject  according  to  the  value 
of  his  lands  or  goods,  after  the  rate  of  4s.  in 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng,  Const.  Hist.  395,  quoting  from 
Petyt,  Jus  Parliamentum,  322,  323. 

2  1  Part.  Hist.  1122. 


THE  STUARTS  249 

the  pound  for  land  and  2s.  Sd.  for  goods,  as 
it  is  not  commonly  used  at  this  day.  Some 
hold  opinion  that  this  subsidy  is  granted  by 
the  subject  to  the  Prince,  in  recompense  or 
consideration,  that  whereas  the  Prince  of  his 
absolute  power  might  make  laws  of  himself, 
he  doth  of  favor  admit  the  consent  of  his  sub- 
jects therein,  that  all  things  in  their  own 
confession  may  be  done  with  the  greater 
indifferency."  * 

King  James  had  been  thoughtless  enough 
to  let  fall  words  of  commendation  for  the  book, 
and  his  approval  was  followed  by  a  request 
from  the  commons  for  a  conference  with  the 
lords.  James,  however,  wisely  withdrew  from 
his  position  and  issued  a  proclamation  pro- 
hibiting the  further  circulation  of  the  work  and 
recalling  the  copies  already  issued.  Thus  did 
the  storm  blow  over. 

At  this  same  session  of  Parliament,  James,  The 
through  the  Lord  Treasurer,  offered  to  accept 
a  composition  for  the  incidents  of  feudal 
tenure,  including  the  right  of  purveyance. 
By  this  so-called  Great  Contract,  Parliament 
was  to  provide  for  an  annual  payment  to  the 

i  Prothero.  Stat.  and  Const.  Doc.  411. 


250  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

king  of  ,£200,000.  But  the  idea,  which  at 
first  was  distasteful  to  the  commons,  shortly 
became  equally  out  of  favor  with  the  king. 
The  amount  of  money  required  seemed  exces- 
sive, and  the  commons  feared  that  it  might 
make  the  king  independent  of  them.  The 
king,  on  the  other  hand,  arrived  ultimately 
at  the  conclusion  that  by  careful  manipulation 
he  could  readily  increase  his  income  to  a  sum 
larger  than  that  stated  in  the  Great  Contract. 
Final  consideration  was  put  over  to  the  session 
of  Parliament  called  for  the  16th  October  fol- 
lowing. At  the  last  moment,  however,  when 
an  agreement  seemed  by  no  means  hopeless, 
a  religious  misunderstanding  intervened,  and 
the  negotiations  fell  through. 

The  matter  of  a  subsidy  was  treated  with 
somewhat  greater  favor,  though  with  small 
generosity.  Parliament  granted  the  king  one 
entire  subsidy  and  one  fifteenth  and  tenth.1 
Parliament  was  dissolved  9th  February,  1611, 
and  for  three  years  James  tried  to  carry  on 
his  government  without  it. 

James's  attempt  at  absolutism  was  not  a 
financial  success ;  a  court  which  was  as  extrava- 

*  1  Part.  Hist.  1133. 


THE  STUARTS  251 

gant  as  it  was  dissolute  helped  him  increase 
his  deficit;  he  ran  behind  about  .£200,000  a 
year,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  set  in 
motion  all  the  machinery  of  petty  extortion  Petty 

that  he  dared.    He  tried  to  force  loans  on  the  eftor*i°11 

after  the 

security  of  his  privy  seal  but  frequently  met  dissolution 
with  refusal  from  which  there  was  no  appeal.  ment 
The  jurisdiction  of  the   Star   Chamber  was 
used    as   a   means  to  lay  fines    which    were 
usually  unjust  and  always  excessive.     He  sold 
peerages    and   raised    money    on    the   crown 
lands,  and  induced  the  French  king  and  the 
Dutch   to  pay  up  old   debts   owing  to  Eng- 
land. 

His  enormous  annual  deficit  forced  him  in  j^^g 

1614  to  summon  his  second  Parliament.     It  second 

,   Parlia- 
came  with  a  great  and  active  majority  lined  ment, 

up  against  the  king.     It  speedily  passed  by  ^*4> 

a   unanimous   vote   a   resolution   against   the  as  the 
,.,.,„.  .  .  ,  ,       "Addled 

king  s   right   ot    imposing   taxes   without   the 


consent  of  Parliament,  and  demanded  a  con-  ment" 
ference  on   that  subject  with  the  House  of 
Lords  ;  a    the   lords,   however,    turned   to   the 
judges  hoping  to  obtain  from  them  enlight- 
enment on  the  legal  points  involved,  but  the 

i  1  Par/.  Hist.  1159. 


252  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

judges,  by  the  words  of  Chief  Justice  Coke, 
refused  to  render  an  extra-judicial  opinion. 
The  conference  was  then  refused.  The  king, 
becoming  impatient  at  the  delay  of  the  com- 
mons in  accomplishing  the  purpose  for  which 
he  had  summoned  them  to  Parliament,  with 
his  usual  failure  to  adapt  himself  to  circum- 
stances, sent  a  message  to  the  House  threaten- 
ing a  dissolution  of  Parliament  unless  proced- 
ure were  immediately  taken  in  the  direction 
of  granting  supplies.1  The  commons  met  the 
issue  squarely;  they  said  that  they  were  deter- 
mined to  conclude  the  matter  of  the  imposi- 
tions before  granting  a  supply.  On  the  7th 
of  June,  two  months  and  two  days  after  the 
date  upon  which  it  had  been  convened,  James 
redeemed  his  word  and  dissolved  Parliament. 
It  had  not  passed  a  single  bill  and  thus  earned 
the  title  by  which  it  is  known  to  history,  —  the 
"Addled"  Parliament.  But  it  had  succeeded 
in  maintaining  its  principle  of  making  supply 
wait  upon  redress  of  grievances,  and  some  of 
its  members  had  shot  barbed  shafts  at  the 
king,  wherefore  James  locked  up  those  who 
had  aimed  most  surely. 

i 1  Part.  Hist.  1166. 


THE  STUARTS  253 

With  the  hope  gone  of  securing  a  grant, 
James  had  to  return  to  his  old  courses  of 
obtaining  income.  Forced  loans,  monopolies, 
heavy  fines,  feudal  payments  rigorously  ex- 
acted, ano!  the  systematic  extortion  of  be-  Resort  to 
nevolences,  figured  in  his  programme.  The  extortlon 
Council  sent  out  orders  to  all  the  sheriffs  and 
magistrates  to  send  in  contributions  from  all 
men  of  ability  to  pay;  to  those  who  refused, 
suggestions  were  made  of  impending  evil.  The 
judges  of  assize  were  especially  urged  to  rec- 
ommend payments.  The  benevolences  netted 
less  than  ,£43,000  for  the  three  years  during 
which  they  were  made.1 

But  the  nation  did  not  submit  tamely. 
Several  counties  sent  up  protests  against  the 
demand,  recalling  in  defense  of  their  position 
the  Statute  of  Richard  III  which  forbade  the 
levying  of  "  exactions,  called  benevolences." 
The  refusal  of  Oliver  St.  John  to  the  request  case  of 
for  a  benevolence  by  the  mayor  of  Marl- 
borough,  brought  him  into  immediate  conflict 
with  the  king.  His  written  reply  to  the  mayor 
maintained  the  illegality  of  the  demand  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  contrary  to  Magna 
i  2  Gardiner,  Hist.  Eng.  [1603-1616]  172. 


254 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


James's 
third  Par- 
liament, 
1620-21 


Carta  and  to  the  Statute  of  Richard  III.  He 
further  charged  the  king  with  breaking  his 
coronation  oath,  and  declared  that  all  who 
paid  the  benevolence  were  incriminated  with 
him.  He  was  haled  before  the  Star  Chamber 
and  sentenced  by  it  to  pay  a  fine  of  £5,000 
and  to  imprisonment  during  the  king's  pleas- 
ure. Thus  it  was  that  James  tried  to  rule 
without  a  Parliament. 

But  the  rule  could  not  long  continue.  James 
summoned  his  third  Parliament  for  the  30th 
January,  1620-21.  He  addressed  both  Houses 
in  a  conciliatory  manner,  hopefully  and  with 
many  promises.  "For  you  to  hunt  after  griev- 
ances," he  said,  "to  the  prejudice  of  your 
king  and  yourselves,  is  not  the  errand:  deal 
with  me  as  I  deserve  at  your  hands;  I  will 
leave  nothing  undone  that  becomes  a  just 
king,  if  you  deal  with  me  accordingly."  l  The 
commons  were  in  a  good  temper  and  a  recon- 
ciliation seemed  far  more  likely  to  eventuate 
than  a  struggle. 

As  for  the  royal  advice  about  grievances, 
the  commons  were  slow  to  take  it.  When, 
shortly  after  the  beginning  of  the  session,  it 

i  1  Part.  Hist.  1179-1180. 


THE  STUARTS  255 

was  moved   that  the  House  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  a  supply,  it  was  stated  that 
supply  and  redress  of  grievances  should  go  Supply 
"hand  in  hand  together,"  that  they  were  "as  ^es^rf 
twins;   to  go   together  and  have  no  preced-  grievances 
ency."  1     It  was  resolved    that  the  business 
of  the  supply  be  not  decided  independently 
of  a  consideration  of  grievances  and  of  a  peti- 
tion to  the  king  for  freedom  of  speech,  thus 
recalling  the  imprisonment  of  members  in  1614 
at  the  time  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Addled 
Parliament. 

High  in  the  list  of  grievances  was  the  grant- 
ing of  monopolies.  Patents  of  monopoly 
subserved  a  number  of  diverse  purposes, 
some  of  which  were  entirely  legitimate.  Ob- 
jection could  not  be  made  to  restrictions  in 
the  sale  of  certain  commodities  such  as  liquors 
and  explosives,  nor  to  the  assurance  given  to 
an  inventor  that  he  had  an  exclusive  right  to 
profits  accruing  from  his  invention.  But 
James  was  free  with  his  grants  of  monopoly 
for  the  enrichment  of  his  courtiers  and  himself. 
Parliament  laid  by  the  heels  the  monopolists 
who  had  most  abused  their  privileges,  and 

i  1  Pad.  Hist.  1187. 


256  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Revival  of    impeached  and  condemned  Sir  Giles  Mom- 
j^enTby"     pesson  and  Sir  Francis  Mitchell.1 

4116  Before  the  judgment  was  given,  however, 

Commons 

but  not  before  it  was  clearly  discernible  what 

was  to  be  the  trend  of  events,  the  commons 
set  themselves  to  the  consideration  of  a  supply 
bill  and  on  the  18th  March  passed  it  unani- 
mously.   It  provided  for  two  entire  subsidies. 
"In  the  midst  of  their  inquiries  into  public 
Granting      grievances,  the  commons  had  thought  fit  to 
of  a  supply  consider  the  necessities  of  the  State  and  grant 
the  king  a  supply."  2 

The  major  part  of  the  session  was  spent  in 
reforming  abuses,  both  by  impeaching  the 
officials  responsible  for  them,  and  by  framing 
legislation  for  their  correction.  Chief  amongst 
those  who  fell  under  comdemnation  at  the  bar 
of  the  House  of  Lords  was  Lord  Francis 
Bacon,  Lord  Chancellor  of  England,  convicted 
of  bribery.  King  James  in  the  early  part  of 

1  This  was  "the  revival  of  the  ancient  right  of  Parliamen- 
tary impeachment  —  the  solemn  accusation  of  an  individual 
by  the  Commons  at  the  bar  of  the  Lords  —  which  had  lain 
dormant  since  the  impeachment  of  the  Duke  of  Suffolk  in 
1449."    For    further  details  see    Taswell-Langmead,  Eng. 
Const.  Hist.  409  et  seq. 

2  1  Parl.  Hist.  1208. 


THE  STUARTS  257 

the  session  seemed  not  out  of  sympathy  with 
these  efforts  to  reform  the  administration, 
but  as  time  wore  on  and  the  commons  still 
busied  themselves  with  investigations  of  offi- 
cial misconduct,  he  wearied,  and  on  the  28th 
May,  the  Lord  Treasurer  declared  to  the 
lords  the  king's  determination  to  adjourn  Par- 
liament. Two  of  the  five  reasons  assigned  for 
the  adjourment  were  these:  "For  that  the 
profits  of  his  Majesty's  revenues  are,  as  it 
were,  at  a  stand;"  and  "The  omission  of  the 
State."  l  A  week  later,  after  great  complaint  by 
the  commons,  the  session  was  adjourned  to  re- 
assemble on  the  14th  November.  Through- 
out the  four  months  during  which  it  had  sat,  no 
complaint  had  been  registered  against  the  im- 
positions at  the  outports.  Apparently  the  com- 
mons were  willing  for  the  moment  to  let  them  james  in 


rest,  or  else,  as  is  more  likely,  were  quite  un-  a  temPer 

adjourns 

mindful  of  them.  Parlia- 

Parliament  met  on  the  20th  November  for 
its  final  session.  Lord  Treasurer  Cranfield 
reported  that  the  exchequer  was  depleted,  that 
the  two  subsidies  which  had  been  granted  the 
previous  March  had  been  spent  in  furthering 

i  1  Part.  Hist.  1262. 


258  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

the  interests  of  James's  son-in-law,  Frederic, 

Elector  Palatine,  and  "that  the  business  now 

in  hand  required  a  great  and  speedy  supply."  l 

It  was  understood  that  the  cost  of  maintaining 

an  army  in  the  Palatinate  would  be  not  far 

Dilatory       from  £900,000  a  year.     The  Lord  Treasurer 

asubskT     wished  "that  the  Commons  would  so  handle 

this  business  as  to  make  his  Majesty  in  love 

with  the  Parliaments." 

But  they  took  some  time  to  consider  it.  At 
the  end  of  the  first  week,  the  commons  re- 
solved in  committee  of  the  whole  house  upon 
a  single  subsidy,  which,  since  it  was  to  be 
levied  doubly  upon  papists,  would  provide 
some  XI 00,000  for  the  prosecution  of  war  in 
the  Palatine.2  That  was  as  near  an  actual 
grant  as  the  commons  came  during  the  session. 
On  the  1st  December,  they  fell  into  a  conflict 
with  the  king  over  matters  of  privilege,  which 
had  its  rise  in  the  imprisonment  of  Sir  Edwin 
Sandys  during  the  last  recess  of  Parliament, 
presumably  for  utterances  made  in  the  House. 
There  were  petitions  to  James  and  replies 
from  him,  culminating  in  a  remarkable  Protes- 
tation asserting  the  right  of  free  speech  in  the 
1 1  Par/.  Hist.  1300-1301.  '  1  Ibid.  1316-1317. 


THE  STUARTS  259 

House.1  On  the  day  of  the  presentation  of 
this  Protestation,  the  18th  December,  James 
adjourned  Parliament  to  the  8th  February; 
he  then  sent  for  the  Journal  of  the  House  of 
Commons  and  tore  from  it  the  objectionable 
entry  with  his  own  hand.  In  the  stress  of 
these  events,  the  proposed  subsidy  was  allowed 
to  slip  out  of  mind ;  only  did  the  lords  propose 
a  meeting  with  the  commons  to  consider  a 
supply,  and  this  came  to  naught.  On  the 
6th  January,  1621-22,  James  saw  fit  not  to 
await  the  reassembling  of  Parliament,  but 
issued  a  proclamation  of  dissolution  in  which 
he  denounced  those  who  had  questioned  his 
prerogatives  in  the  House  of  Commons  as 
"  ill-tempered  spirits."  Then  he  committed 
to  prison  such  of  them  as  he  regarded  as  being 
most  hostile,  amongst  whom  were  Sir  Edward 
Coke,  Pym,  Selden,  and  Mallory.2 

James  convened  his  last  Parliament  on  the  James's 
19th  February,  1623-24.    In  the  interval  which  Jf^^T 
had  elapsed  since  the  dissolution,  James  re-  1623-24 
covered  his  conciliatory  attitude  toward  the 
commons.     The  plan  of  marrying  the  Prince 
of  Wales,  the  young  Prince  Charles,  to  the 

* 1  Part.  Hist.  1361-1363.  >  1  Ibid.  1366-1371. 


260  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Infanta  of  Spain,  had  been  given  up,  and  thus 
Englishmen  were  relieved  of  what  to  them  had 
been  a  pro-popish  plot,  and  had  been  depre- 
cated again  and  again  as  the  odious  Spanish 
Match.  The  programme  with  respect  to  the 
Palatinate  favored  by  the  king  was  that  fa- 
vored by  the  commons,  and  the  reign  of  James 
seemed  to  be  approaching  a  happy  conclusion. 
Supply  The  commons  came  forward  with  a  grant  of 
granted  three  subsidies  and  three  fifteenths  and  tenths, 

for  the 

Palatine      providing    a    somewhat    greater    sum    than 
war  jBSOOyOOO.1     The   money  was   voted   on   the 

condition  that,  in  order  to  insure  its  applica- 
tion to  the  naval  and  military  establishments, 
it  be  paid  into  the  hands  of  commissioners 
appointed  by  the  commons,  and  be  expended 
by  them  upon  direction  of  the  council  of  war. 
The  sympathy  existing  between  king  and 
Parliament  was  further  exhibited  in  the  suc- 
cessful passage  of  an  act  forbidding  monopo- 
lies in  the  sale  of  any  merchandise  or  in  prac- 
ticing any  trade,  the  only  legislative  act  of 
constructive  importance  in  his  reign.2  Parlia- 
ment was  dissolved  on  the  29th  May,  1624. 

1 1  Parl.  Hist.  1487-1488. 

2  1  Hallam,  Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  508,  509. 


THE  STUARTS  261 


Less  than  a  year  later  King  James  died.  Death  of 
Apparently  at  the  end  of  his  reign  he  was 


learning  wisdom  for  he  was  beginning  to  un-  March, 
derstand  Parliament.  He  left  his  crown  to  the 
keeping  of  a  son  who  had  in  no  wise  profited 
by  the  father's  experience.  Charles  I,  brought 
up  in  an  atmosphere  of  divine  right,  was  pre- 
disposed to  pursue  that  theory  to  the  end.  But 
worse  than  that,  in  arguing  his  melancholy 
destiny,  was  his  faithlessness.  An  odious  policy 
executed  without  respect  for  truth  brought  him 
at  last  to  death  outside  his  palace  of  Whitehall. 

The  first  Parliament  of  Charles  I  recalls  First  Par- 
vividly  the  mid-reign  experiences  of  James.  Ch^e*° 
It  convened  on  the  18th  June,  1625,  and  was 
met  with  a  request  for  a  large  and  uncondi- 
tional grant  with  which  to  prosecute  the  war 
which  Charles  had  inherited  from  his  father. 
The  commons,  however,  were  careful;  they 
looked  rather  for  a  solid  establishment  of 
government  at  home  than  for  a  war  abroad. 
Breaking  the  habit  of  two  centuries,  they 
offered  Charles  tunnage  and  poundage  for  a 
year  instead  of  the  term  of  his  life,  a  measure 
which,  because  of  lack  of  precedent,  was 
rejected  in  the  House  of  Lords;  and  granted 


262  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

only  two  subsidies.1  On  the  10th  August, 
the  chancellor  delivered  a  message  to  the  com- 
mons from  the  king.  He  desired  "a  pres- 
ent answer  about  his  supply:  If  not,  he  will 
Worry  take  care  of  their  healths  more  than  they 
supply  themselves,  and  make  as  good  a  shift  for  his 
present  occasions  as  he  could."  2  The  House 
spent  the  rest  of  the  day  debating  the  matter, 
and  on  the  next  proceeded  in  the  considera- 
tion of  grievances,  postponing  the  supply. 
Delay  the  king  would  not  brook;  perceiving 
that  the  commons  were  bent  upon  a  redress 
of  grievances  before  the  granting  of  further 
aid,  and  because  in  the  debates  they  had  pre- 
sumed "to  reflect  upon  some  great  persons 
near  himself,"  on  the  12th  August  he  dissolved 
Parliament,3  and  looked  to  his  privy  seal  as 
a  means  of  revenue. 
His  second  Six  months  later,  on  the  6th  February, 

Parlia-         1625-26,   Charles  opened  his  second  Parlia- 
ment. 
Bucking-      ment  and  met  with  no  better  success.     The 

commons  did  not  consider  immediately  the 
question  of  a  supply,  but  to  the  immense  irri- 
tation of  the  king,  proceeded  to  inquire  into 

i  2  Parl.  Hist.  6.  2  2  Ibid.  33. 

s  2  Ibid.  35-37. 


THE  STUARTS  263 

the  conduct  of  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  the 
favorite  of  Charles.  He  sent  a  message  to  the 
commons  saying  that  he  would  "not  allow 
any  of  his  servants  to  be  questioned  amongst 
them,  much  less  such  as  are  of  eminent  place 
and  near  unto  him."  But  the  chief  signifi- 
cance of  his  message  was  in  its  conclusion. 
"I  wish  you  would  hasten  my  supply,"  so  it 
ran,  "or  else  it  will  be  worse  for  yourselves; 
for  if  any  ill  happen,  I  think  I  shall  be  the  last 
that  shall  feel  it."  *  The  commons  replied 
with  a  grant  of  three  subsidies  and  three 
fifteenths,  but  the  conditions  were  such  as  to  A  grant 
make  it  almost  worse  for  Charles  than  no  conditions 
grant  at  all.  The  bill  was  not  to  be  brought 
in  until  the  king  should  have  given  answer  to 
their  list  of  grievances,  and  among  the  griev- 
ances the  Duke  of  Buckingham  was  chief.2 
Later  a  fourth  subsidy  was  added  and  a  move- 
ment was  put  on  foot  to  give  Charles  tunnage 
and  poundage  for  life;  but  in  the  bill  it  was 
specified  that  a  remonstrance  should  be  drawn 
up  against  his  taking  those  duties  without  the 
previous  consent  of  Parliament.3  Then  the 

i  2  Par/.  Hist .  49,  50.  *  2  Ibid.  56. 

32  Ibid.  100,  101. 


264  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

commons  went  on  with  their  formal  impeach- 
ment of  Buckingham.  But  before  the  matter 
was  settled,  and  consequently  before  the 
Commons  had  made  final  grants  of  the 
promised  subsidies,  Charles,  in  the  hope  of 
relieving  the  desperate  plight  of  his  favorite, 
dissolved  Parliament,  on  the  15th  June. 
Forced  The  dissolution  left  Charles  without  the 

means  with  which  to  carry  on  the  proposed 


of  a  war  with   Spain.     He   turned   again   to   old 

expedients;  he  forced  loans,  exacted  benevo- 
lences, and  suspended  penal  laws  for  a  con- 
sideration. The  loans  took  the  form  of  a 
general  levy  according  to  the  well-known  rate 
of  the  subsidy  and  were  thus  in  effect  assess- 
ments of  a  general  tax  by  the  arbitrary  power 
of  the  crown.  Of  great  importance  in  the 
light  of  subsequent  history,  was  the  requisi- 
tion made  upon  the  seaport  towns  for  ships 
armed  and  equipped,  the  precursor  of  the 
demand  for  ship  money.  Imprisonment,  im- 
pressment into  the  royal  navy,  the  quartering 
of  soldiers  upon  the  inhabitants,  the  dismissal 
from  offices  held  of  the  crown,  were  the  several 
rewards  of  those  sufficiently  courageous  to 
stand  by  the  principle  that  taxes  be  laid  only 


THE  STUARTS  265 

by  the  assent  of  Parliament.1  By  an  order  in 
Council  it  was  declared,  "that  all  customs, 
duties,  and  imposts  on  all  goods  and  merchan- 
dizes exported  and  imported,  which,  for  many 
ages  had  been  continued,  and  esteemed  a 
principal  and  necessary  part  of  the  revenue  of 
the  crown,  should  be  levied  and  paid."  The 
hope  was  expressed  that  these  levies  "might 
receive  an  absolute  settlement  by  Parliament," 
when  that  body  should  again  assemble.2 

Not  being  content  with  the  financial  diffi- 
culties incident  to  the  war  with  Spain,  Charles, 
at  the  suggestion  of  Buckingham,  slipped  into 
a  war  with  France.  Buckingham  led  an 
expedition  to  the  Isle  of  Rhe,  met  with  dis- 
aster and  ignominy,  and  succeeded  in  using 
up  the  ready  money  of  the  king.  Charles  had  Charles's 
to  call  his  third  Parliament  in  order  to  obtain 


supplies.     It  met  17th  March,  1627-28.     The  1627-28 
king  attempted  to  propitiate  the  commons  by 
releasing  the  prisoners  whom  he  still  held  for 
refusing  to  meet  the  demand  for  the  general 

1  Arbitrary  imprisonment  led  to  the  suspension  of  the  right 
to  secure  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  by  direct  command  and  pe- 
culiar power  of  the  king.  Vid.  Darnel's  Case  in  Taswell- 
Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  425,  426. 

a  2  Pad.  Hist.  207,  208. 


266 


PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 


loan.  In  his  opening  speech,  Charles  took 
the  wrong  tack.  "There  is  none  here,"  he 
said,  "but  knows  that  common  danger  is  the 
cause  of  this  Parliament,  and  that  supply  at 
this  time  is  the  chief  end  of  it.  ...  If  you, 
(which  God  forbid)  should  not  do  your  duties 
in  contributing  what  the  State  at  this  time 
needs,  I  must  in  discharge  of  my  conscience, 
use  those  other  means  which  God  hath  put 
into  my  hands,  to  save  that  which  the  follies 
of  some  particular  men  may  otherwise  hazard 
to  lose."  l  Nor  was  this  bold  assertion  of 
the  divine  right  of  a  king  to  put  his  hand  in 
the  pockets  of  his  subjects  enough.  The 
Threats  of  lord  keeper  said  in  addition,  "This  way  (of 
°btaining  a  supply),  as  his  Majesty  hath  told 
you,  he  hath  chosen,  not  as  the  only  way,  but 
as  the  fittest;  not  as  destitute  of  others,  but 
as  most  agreeable  to  the  goodness  of  his  own 
most  gracious  disposition,  and  to  the  desire 
and  weal  of  his  people.  If  this  be  deferred, 
necessity  and  the  sword  of  the  enemy  will 
make  way  to  others.  Remember  his  Majesty's 
admonition:  I  say,  remember  it."  2 

The  House   immediately  set   itself  to   the 

i  2  Part.  Hist.  213.  a  2  Ibid.  221. 


exaction 


THE  STUARTS  267 

consideration  of  grievances,  chief  amongst  Grievances 
which  were  "  raising  money  by  loans,  by  haTe  pre" 
benevolences,  and  privy  seals:  and  what  was 
too  fresh  in  memory,  the  imprisonment  of 
certain  gentlemen  who  refused  to  lend."  * 
The  matter  of  a  supply  was  debated,  but 
passed  by  in  favor  of  the  grievances.  On  the 
3rd  April,  the  commons  agreed  unanimously 
to  certain  highly  significant  resolutions  against 
the  powers  assumed  by  the  king.  "No  free- 
man ought  to  be  committed,  or  detained  in 
prison,  or  otherwise  restrained,"  they  said,  "  by 
command  of  the  king,  or  the  Privy  Council,  or 
any  other,"  except  for  lawful  cause  expressed 
in  a  lawful  warrant;  and  "that  the  ancient  and 
undoubted  right  of  every  freeman  is,  that  he 
hath  a  full  and  absolute  property  in  his  goods 
and  estate;  and  that  no  tax,  tallage,  loan,  . 

Denuncia- 

benevolence,  or  other  like  charge,  ought  to  turn  of 
be  commanded  or  levied  by  the  king  or  his 
ministers,  without  common  assent  of  Parlia- 
ment." 2 

For  the  space  of  two  months  the  commons 
and  the  House  of  Lords  engaged  themselves 
in  conference  and  separately  in  the  consid- 

i  2  Parl.  Hist.  230.  2  2  Ibid.  259-260. 


268  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

eration  of  a  petition  defining,  the  rights  as- 
serted in  the  resolutions.  On  the  part  of  the 
commons  the  chief  advocates  were  Selden, 
Littleton,  and  Digges ;  Sir  Edward  Coke,  whose 
unwillingness  to  bend  the  judicial  knee  to  King 
James  had  procured  his  dismissal  long  since 
from  the  chief -justiceship;  and  Noy,  the  genius 
who  was  shortly  to  turn  against  the  Commons 
and  in  his  invention  of  ship  money  furnish  a 
means  whereby  to  lay  taxes  without  parliamen- 
tary assent.  The  interest  of  the  crown  was  de- 
fended by  attorney-general  Heath  and  Sergent 
Ashley.  The  king  was  in  a  dilemma ;  he  could 
not  permit  the  petition  to  be  brought  in,  in 
parliamentary  form,  and  he  could  not  dissolve 
Parliament  without  losing  five  subsidies  which 
the  commons  had  signified  their  willingness  to 
grant  him.1  He  therefore  tried  to  steer  a 
middle  course;  he  offered  to  Parliament  his 
royal  word  not  to  imprison  unjustly  and  ex- 
pressed his  willingness  to  confirm  the  charters. 
Coke,  however,  insisted  upon  a  specific  state- 
ment of  issues ;  any  such  hazy  settlement  of  dif- 
ficulties as  the  king  proposed  was  unlikely  to 
be  permanent;  definiteness  was  essential.  To 
i  2  Parl.  Hist.  274,  277,  278. 


THE  STUARTS  269 

that  end  he  proposed  the  drawing  up  of  a 
Petition  of  Right. 

When  the  instrument  was  at  last  drawn  up,  The 
it  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Lords.    The  lords  , 

Of  Kignt 

attempted  to  introduce  an  amendment  de- 
signed "to  leave  entire  that  sovereign  power," 
as  the  proposed  change  itself  ran,  "wherewith 
your  Majesty  is  trusted  for  the  protection, 
safety  and  happiness  of  your  people;"  l  but  the 
commons  would  have  none  of  it,  and  at  last  the 
lords  yielded  their  assent.  The  king  at  first 
gave  a  cumbersome,  evasive  answer  to  the  pe- 
tition which  was  in  reality  no  answer  at  all,2 
and  roused  thereby  a  storm  of  indignation, 
which  exhibited  itself  in  a  movement  to  censure 
Buckingham.  This  the  king  averted  by  sign- 
ing the  Petition  of  Right  in  the  usual  manner, 
and  received  in  consequence  his  five  subsidies.8 
The  Petition  which  thus  became  a  regularly 
passed  Act  of  Parliament,  is  of  transcendent 
importance  in  the  development  of  the  control 
of  the  people  over  the  public  purse.4  In 

i  2  Par/.  Hist.  355.  »  2  Ibid.  377. 

'  2  Ibid.  409,  410. 

4  The  sections  which  concern  taxation: — 
Humbly  show  unto  our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  the  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons  in  Parliament  as- 


270  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  stat-     terms  absolutely  unequivocal,  it  asserts  that 
i-  "vour  subjects  have  inherited  this  freedom, 
that  they  should  not  be  compelled   to  con- 
tribute to  any  tax,  tallage,  aid,  or  other  like 

sembled,  that  whereas  it  is  declared  and  enacted  by  a  statute 
made  in  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  First,  commonly 
called,  Statidum  de  tallagio  non  concedendo,  that  no  tallage 
or  aid  shall  be  laid  or  levied  by  the  king  or  his  heirs  in  this 
realm,  without  the  goodwill  and  assent  of  the  Archbishops, 
Bishops,  Earls,  Barons,  Knights,  Burgesses,  and  other  free- 
men of  the  commonalty  of  this  realm;  and  by  authority  of 
Parliament  holden  in  the  five  and  twentieth  year  of  the  reign 
of  King  Edward  the  Third,  it  is  declared  and  enacted,  that 
from  thenceforth  no  person  shall  be  compelled  to  make  any 
loans  to  the  king  against  his  will,  because  such  loans  were 
against  reason  and  the  franchise  of  the  land;  and  by  other 
laws  of  this  realm  it  is  provided,  that  none  should  be  charged 
by  any  charge  or  imposition,  called  a  Benevolence,  nor  by 
such  like  charge,  by  which  the  statutes  before  mentioned, 
and  the  other  the  good  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm,  your 
subjects  have  inherited  this  freedom,  that  they  should  not 
be  compelled  to  contribute  to  any  tax,  tallage,  aid,  or  other 
like  charge,  not  set  by  common  consent  in  Parliament: 

Yet  nevertheless,  of  late  divers  commissions  directed  to 
sundry  commissioners  in  several  counties  with  instructions 
have  issued,  by  pretext  whereof  your  people  have  been  in  divers 
places  assembled,  and  required  to  lend  certain  sums  of  money 
unto  your  Majesty,  and  many  of  them  upon  their  refusal  so 
to  do,  have  had  an  unlawful  oath  administered  unto  them, 
not  warrantable  by  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm,  and 
have  been  constrained  to  become  bound  to  make  appearance 
and  give  attendance  before  your  Privy  Council,  and  in  other 
places;  and  others  of  them  have  been  therefore  imprisoned, 


THE  STUARTS  271 

charge,  not  set  by  common  consent  in  Parlia- 
ment." The  statutory  sources  whence  that 
freedom  was  inherited  are  cited  in  detail.  The 
citations,  are,  however,  ill-taken.  Statutum 
de  tallagio  non  concedendo  was  in  all  likeli- 

confined,  and  sundry  other  ways  molested  and  disquieted: 
and  divers  other  charges  have  been  laid  and  levied  upon 
your  people  in  several  counties,  by  Lords  Lieutenants,  Deputy 
Lieutenants,  Commissioners  for  Musters,  Justices  of  the  Peace 
and  others,  by  command  or  direction  from  your  Majesty  or 
your  privy  Council,  against  the  laws  and  free  customs  of 
this  realm.  .  .  . 

And  whereas  of  late  great  companies  of  soldiers  and  marines 
have  been  dispersed  into  divers  counties  of  the  realm,  and 
the  inhabitants  against  their  wills  have  been  compelled  to 
receive  them  into  their  houses,  and  there  to  suffer  them  to 
sojourn,  against  the  laws  and  customs  of  the  realm,  and  to 
the  great  grievance  and  vexation  of  the  people.  .  .  . 

They  do  therefore  humbly  pray  your  most  Excellent  Ma- 
jesty, that  no  man  hereafter  be  compelled  to  make  or  yield 
any  gift,  loan,  benevolence,  tax,  or  such  like  charge,  without 
common  consent  by  Act  of  Parliament;  and  that  none  be 
call:  d  to  make  answer,  or  take  such  oath,  or  to  give  attend- 
ance, or  be  confined,  or  otherwise  molested  or  disquieted 
concerning  the  same,  or  for  refusal  thereof;  .  .  .  and  that 
your  Majesty  will  be  pleased  to  remove  the  said  soldiers  and 
marines,  and  that  your  people  may  not  be  burdened  in  time 
to  come.  2  ParL  Hist.  374-6.  The  Petition  of  Right  may 
also  be  found  in  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Constitutional  Documents 
of  the  Puritan  Revolution,  1828-1660,  66-70;  Adams  and 
Stephens,  Sel.  Doc.  339-342.  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const. 
Hist.  430-433. 


272  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

hood  no  statute  at  all,  but  a  chronicler's 
abstract  of  Edward  I's  Confirmatio  Cartarum, 
or  perhaps  an  unauthoritative  copy  of  the  par- 
don which  was  granted  to  Humfrey  Bohun 
and  Roger  Bigod  at  approximately  the  same 
time  with  the  Confirmation  of  the  Charters. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  citation  of  the  stat- 
ute of  the  25th  of  Edward  III  was  an  error; 
at  any  rate,  the  text  of  the  statute  has  not  been 
discovered,1  and  the  date  at  which  it  was  said 
to  be  enacted  was  at  the  height  of  the  great 
plague,  a  time  scarcely  adapted  to  the  asser- 
tion of  a  great  constitutional  principle.  But 
the  precise  historical  foundation  upon  which 
Sir  Edward  Coke  and  his  associates  based 
their  charges  against  the  king,  is  of  quite  sec- 
ondary importance.  The  true  value  of  the 
Petition  of  Right  lies  in  this,  that  Charles  I 
had  been  obliged  to  subscribe  to  a  statutory 
provision  by  which  no  man  thereafter  was  to 
"  be  compelled  to  make  or  yield  any  gift,  loan, 
benevolence,  tax,  or  such  like  charge,  without 
common  consent  by  Act  of  Parliament." 
That  was  indeed  supremely  important. 

But  the  language  of  the  Petition  of  Right 

1  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  66,  note  2. 


THE  STUARTS  273 

might  reasonably  be  taken  to  refer  only  to 
internal  taxes  and  that  the  matter  of  customs 
duties,  the  charges  upon  merchandise  at  the 
outports,  was  left  still  in  the  air.  Protests 
had  indeed  been  made  against  the  exaction 
of  these  duties  by  the  crown,  especially  during 
the  reign  of  James  in  the  great  agitation  over  The 


the  Book  of  Rates,  but  no  statute  had  been  B?1!*!011  °f 

Right  and 

passed  providing  definitely  for  parliamentary  customs 
control.  To  that  end,  the  commons  delayed 
the  passage  of  a  bill  which  gave  the  king  tun- 
nage  and  poundage  for  life,  pending  the  accept- 
ance by  him  of  a  remonstrance  against  imposi- 
tions. The  remonstrance  as  framed  by  the 
commons  declared  that  "there  ought  not  any 
imposition  to  be  laid  upon  the  goods  of  mer- 
chants, exported  or  imported,  without  the 
common  consent  by  Act  of  Parliament.11  l  It 
further  made  assertion  that  the,  laying  of 
impositions  at  the  outports  was  contrary  to 
the  Petition  of  Right.  The  king's  attitude 
was  decisive;  before  the  remonstrance  was 
handed  to  him,  he  evaded  the  issue  by  pro- 
roguing Parliament.  Never,  so  he  said,  would 
he  give  away  tunnage  and  poundage;  he  must 

i  2  Part.  Hist.  432. 


274  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

needs  retain  them  for  himself.     The  session 
ended  26th  June,  1628.1 

During  the  six  months  which  elapsed  before 
the  reassembling  of  Parliament,  Charles  con- 
Tunnage  tinned  to  levy  tunnage  and  poundage  upon  his 
poundage  own  authority,  relying  still  upon  the  decision 
in  the  Bate  Case  for  his  justification.  Several 
merchants  who  refused  to  pay  were  promptly 
clapped  into  prison;  among  those  whose 
goods  were  seized  for  the  same  reason  was 
Henry  Rolles,  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  The  second  session  of  Parliament 
was  called  for  the  20th  January,  1628-29;  the 
commons  came  together  with  no  pretense  of 
smothering  their  indignation  against  the  con- 
duct of  the  king.  A  number  of  plans  were 
brought  forward  as  means  of  rectifying  the 
abuses.  The  evident  determination  of  the 
commons  to  conclude  the  matter,  daunted  the 
king.  Summoning  both  Houses  to  Whitehall, 
he  renounced  the  right  of  levying  tunnage 
and  poundage.  "It  ever  was,  and  still  is  my 
meaning,"  so  were  his  words,  "by  the  gift 
of  my  people  to  enjoy  it,  and  my  intention 
in  my  speech  at  the  end  of  the  last  session  was 
i  2  Parl.  Hist.  433-434. 


THE  STUARTS  275 

not  to  challenge  tunnage  and  poundage  as  of 
right,  but  de  bene  esse,  showing  you  the  neces- 
sity, not  the  right,  by  which  I  was  to  take  it 
until  you  had  granted  it  to  me,  assuring  my- 
self according  to  your  general  professions 
that  you  wanted  time  and  not  good-will  to 
give  it  me."  l  For  a  moment  it  appeared  as 
though  this  abandonment  of  position  by  the 
king  would  end  the  conflict.  Three  days  after 
his  reception  of  the  Houses  at  Whitehall,  Mr. 
Secretary  Cooke  moved  the  reading  of  a  bill 
granting  him  tunnage  and  poundage  for  life. 
But  it  never  passed.  The  commons  were 
distracted  by  a  question  of  religious  innova- 
tion, talked  at  great  length  over  their  religious 
grievances,  and  allowed  their  momentary 
flush  of  cordial  feeling  toward  the  king  to  cool. 
Mr.  Secretary  Cooke  on  the  two  days  following 
that  upon  which  he  made  his  motion  regarding 
tunnage  and  poundage,  delivered  messages 
from  Charles  urging  haste  in  the  considera- 
tion of  the  measure.2  On  the  2nd  February, 
the  commons  acknowledged  the  receipt  of 
the  messages,  but  rather  than  pass  a  bill 
satisfactory  to  the  king  in  this  particular, 

i  2  Par/.  Hist.  442,  443.  2  2  Ibid.  449,  453. 


276  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

they  stated  their  intent  to  "proceed  with  re- 
ligion." * 

On  the  19th  February  they  began  a  lengthy 
consideration  of  the  breach  of  privilege  com- 
mitted against  the  House  of  Commons  in  the 
seizure  of  the  goods  of  Henry  Holies,  the  mer- 
chant member  of  the  House,  who  had  refused 
payment  of  tunnage  and  poundage  during 
the  recent  recess.  The  officers  who  had  par- 
ticipated in  the  seizure  of  his  goods  were  sum- 
moned before  the  commons  that  they  might 
answer  for  contempt.  The  stand  was  taken 
against  the  king  on  this  ground  of  privilege, 
instead,  as  Pym  advised,  of  objecting  on  the 
broad  constitutional  ground  that  Parliament 
had  not  granted  the  tax.  This  hostility  was 
too  much  for  the  conciliatory  spirit  which 
Charles  had  evinced  at  the  opening  of  the  ses- 
sion. Through  Mr.  Secretary  Cooke,  he  an- 
nounced his  unwillingness  to  have  his  officers 
questioned,  since  "what  they  did  was  by  his 
own  direct  command,  or  by  order  of  the  council- 
board,  his  Majesty  himself  being  present,  and 
therefore,  would  not  have  it  divided  from  his 
act."  2 

i  2  Par/.  Hist.  454.  >  2  Ibid.  482. 


THE  STUARTS  277 

The  question  was  fought  out  on  the  2nd 
March,  when  the  commons  reassembled  after 
a  brief  recess.  The  king,  hoping  to  arrange 
the  difficulty  privately  with  the  leaders  of  the 
House,  ordered  the  recess  to  be  continued 
until  the  10th  March.  To  this  the  commons 
entered  vigorous  protest;  at  the  putting  of  the 
question,  the  vote  was  overwhelmingly  against  Tumult 
adjournment.  The  speaker,  Sir  John  Finch,  "*  the 

Commons 

in  obedience  to  the  royal  will,  attempted  to 
leave  his  chair,  and  thus  break  up  the  session ; 
but  Holies  and  Valentine,  two  members  most 
eager  for  the  consideration  of  the  matters  press- 
ing for  attention,  pushed  him  back  into  his  seat. 
Sir  John  Eliot,  who  had  drawn  up  three  res- 
olutions expressing  the  mind  of  the  commons 
on  the  questions  of  religion  and  taxation,  read 
them  above  the  uproar.  The  speaker  and  the 
clerk  refused  to  put  the  vote  and  the  king's 
guard  was  already  on  its  way  to  make  a  forci- 
ble end  to  the  proceedings.  At  the  moment 
when  the  guardsmen  were  at  the  door,  Holies 
read  the  resolutions  and  they  were  carried  by 
acclamation.  The  House  then  adjourned  in 
a  tumult  until  the  10th  March.  * 

1  2  Parl.  Hist.  457,  491. 


278  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

The  resolutions  were  most  explicit.  The 
two  which  concerned  the  impositions  said: 
"  Whosoever  shall  counsel  or  advise  the  taking 
and  levying  of  the  subsidies  of  tunnage  and 
poundage,  not  being  granted  by  Parliament, 
or  shall  be  an  actor  and  instrument  therein, 
shall  be  likewise  reputed  an  innovator  in  the 
government  and  a  capital  enemy  to  this  king- 
dom and  commonwealth."  And :  "  If  any  mer- 
chant or  other  person  whatsoever  shall  vol- 
untarily yield  or  pay  the  said  subsidies  of 
tunnage  and  poundage  not  being  granted  by 
Parliament,  he  shall  likewise  be  reputed  a  be- 
trayer of  the  liberty  of  England,  and  an  enemy 
to  the  same."  * 

When  the  House  reconvened  on  the  10th 
March,  the  king  dissolved  Parliament  without 
further  ado.  With  respect  to  such  of  the 
commons  as  merited  his  displeasure  he  re- 
marked that  the  vipers  amongst  them  would 
meet  with  their  rewards. 

With  the  dissolution  of  his  third  Parliament, 

Charles   entered   upon   a   new   epoch   in   his 

reign;  and  at  the  conclusion  of  it,  he  found 

that  his  game  had  been  for  too  heavy  stakes, 

i  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  82,  83;  2  Pad.  Hist.  491. 


THE  STUARTS  279 

and  that  he  had  lost.    For  eleven  years  he  did  Charles's 
without  a  Parliament.     He  began  by  issuing  years 


a  Declaration  addressed  to  his  "loving  sub- 

Parlia- 
jects"  in  which  he  told  the  history  of  the  late  ment, 

session  from  his  own  point  of  view,  —  that 
he  was  in  extreme  need  of  money  with  which 
to  meet  the  necessities  of  England  and  relieve 
the  "miserable  afflicted  state"  of  Protestants 
abroad,  that  Parliament  had  proved  itself 
intractable,  and  had  greatly  delayed,  contrary 
to  all  precedent,  in  the  matter  of  tunnage  and 
poundage;  not  only  that,  but  upon  his  gra- 
ciously yielding  to  Parliament  the  power  of 
granting  him  tunnage  and  poundage,  it  had 
raised  up  still  another  cause  for  delay  in  the 
case  of  Henry  Holies.1  In  a  proclamation 
issued  two  weeks  later  he  plainly  exhibited 
his  intention  to  rule  without  a  Parliament; 
"the  calling,  continuing,  and  dissolving  of 
them,"  he  said,  "being  always  in  the  King's 
own  power.  And  his  Majesty  shall  be  more 
inclinable  to  meet  in  Parliament  again  when 
his  people  shall  see  more  clearly  into  his 
intents  and  actions,  when  such  as  have  bred 

1  "The  king's  declaration  of  the  causes  of  the  late  dissolu- 
tion."   Gardiner,  Const,  Doc.  83-99;  2  ParL  Hist.  492-504. 


280  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

this  interruption  shall  receive  their  condign 
punishment."  l 

He  imprisoned  accordingly  Holies,  Strode, 
Sir  John  Eliot  and  others  whom  he  included 
amongst  the  vipers  of  the  commons,  and  re- 
moved such  of  them  to  the  Tower  as  were 
able  to  sue  out  their  writs  of  habeas  corpus, 
in  order  that  he  might  thus  elude  the  service 
of  the  writs.  But  imprisonment  was  scarcely 
a  means  of  relief  to  the  king's  financial  exi- 
His  gencies.  He  turned  to  expedients  which  were 

financial  exceedingly  oppressive,  and  most  of  them 
clearly  illegal.  He  rigorously  extorted  tunnage 
and  poundage  by  the  arbitrary  authority  of 
the  crown;  he  reestablished  the  monopolies 
abolished  under  James  I,  and  applied  them 
to  nearly  every  article  in  common  use;  he 
revived  laws  long  since  dead  and  applied  them 
stringently  for  the  sake  of  their  fines;  he 
revived  forest  legislation  and  increased  the 
limits  of  the  royal  woodlands,  mulcting  the 
owners  of  adjoining  property  for  encroach- 
ment; he  searched  titles  of  estates  for  defects 
which  would  make  them  liable  to  reversion 
to  the  crown;  he  went  back  to  the  old  practice 
i  2  Par/.  Hist.  525. 


THE  STUARTS  281 


of  compulsory  knighthood  for  those  who  had 
,£40  or  more  in  lands  or  rents. 

But  the  supreme  grievance  was  the  extor-  ship 
tion  of  ship  money.      Sir  William  Noy,  lately 


leader  in  the  commons  in  defense  of  popular  20th  Octo- 

ber, 1634 
power  against  royal  prerogative,  now  become 

by  the  grace  of  the  king  attorney-general  and  a 
chief  supporter  of  that  same  royal  prerogative, 
shut  himself  up  in  the  Tower  for  some  days 
that  he  might  better  consult  the  ancient  au- 
thorities. "Shaking  off  the  dust  of  ages  from 
parchments  in  the  Tower,"  says  Hallam, 
"this  man  of  venal  diligence  and  prostituted 
learning  discovered  that  the  seaports  and  even 
maritime  counties  had  in  early  times  been 
sometimes  called  upon  to  furnish  ships  for 
the  public  service;  nay  there  were  instances 
for  a  similar  demand  upon  some  inland 
places.*'  *  The  first  writ  of  ship  money  was 

i  2  Hallam,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  15. 

The  "parchments  in  the  Tower"  might  readily  have  in- 
cluded the  following,  which  exhibits  an  historical  precedent 
for  the  ship  money: 

"1008.  Rex  Anglorum  Aegelredus  de  ccc.  x.  cassatis 
unam  trierem,  de  novem  vero  loricam  et  cassidem  fieri,  et 
per  totam  Angliam  naves  intente  praecipit  fabricari."  1  Flo- 
rentii  Wigorniensis  Monachi,  Chronicon  ex  Chroniris,  160. 

1  Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  647,  note  LL.,  cites  3  Co- 


282  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

directed  to  the  magistrates  of  London  and 
other  seaport  towns,  and  was  issued  on  the 
20th  October,  1634.  It  recited  the  depreda- 
tions of  pirates,  "Turks,  enemies  of  the 
Christian  name,"  and  the  prevalence  of  war 
upon  the  continent.  It  enjoined  upon  the 
magistrates  the  furnishing  of  ships  of  specific 
tonnage  and  equipage  by  the  1st  of  the  follow- 
ing March.  They  were  empowered  to  assess 
all  the  inhabitants  according  to  their  substance, 
both  for  the  fitting  out  of  the  ships  and  the 
maintenance  of  their  crews  for  the  space  of 
six  months.  Refusals  to  pay  were  punishable 
by  imprisonment.  The  writ  was  issued  by 
the  king  with  the  advice  of  the  Privy  Council.1 
The  show  of  precedent  was  barely  an 
extenuation,  not  a  justification  of  the  demand. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  virtually  an  extor- 
tion of  a  tax,  and  as  such  was  a  distinct  viola- 

dex  Diplomaticus,  351,  to  show  that  before  1008  a  levy  of 
ships  was  not  unknown.  Archbishops  Aelfric  upon  his  death 
gave  to  the  people  of  Wiltshire  and  Kent  a  ship.  Wiltshire 
is  an  inland  county.  It  is  justifiable,  then,  to  believe  that  "per 
totam  Angliam"  may  be  taken  literally,  and  that  Ethelred 
really  exacted  a  ship  from  every  310  hides  throughout  Eng- 
land. 

i  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  105-108. 


THE  STUARTS  283 

tion  of  the  Petition  of  Right.  London,  being 
the  only  port  in  the  kingdom  capable  of  con- 
structing and  equipping  ships  of  the  character 
designated  in  the  writs,  was  the  only  town  able 
to  make  literal  compliance  with  the  demand. 
The  rest  were  obliged  to  make  money  pay- 
ments. But  the  matter  was  to  come  up  later 
in  the  courts,  and  the  legality  or  illegality  of  The  true 
the  writs  was  there  to  be  decided.  As  for  the  occasion 

for  the  levy 
occasion  of  the  requisition  denominated  in  the 

ordinance,  that  was  false.  The  design  was 
not  against  "Turks,  enemies  of  the  Christian 
name,"  but  against  the  Dutch  Republic. 
Charles  had  proposed  a  secret  treaty  with 
Spain  whereby  the  government  of  the  Low- 
landers  should  be  overthrown  and  its  territory 
be  divided  between  England  and  Spain.1 
Not  only  was  this  act  of  Charles  a  breach  of 
his  recent  great  compact  with  the  nation,  but 
it  had  for  its  purpose  an  act  of  aggression 
against  the  people  who  stood  for  the  highest 
political  ideals  then  known  in  Europe,  and 
was  based  on  a  lie. 

Sir  John  Finch,  the  chief  justice  of  com- 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.   Const.  Hist.  443;  Trevelyan, 
England  Under  the  Stuarts,  163. 


284  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

mon  pleas,  the  same  who,  as  speaker  of  the 

commons,  had  been  forcibly  held  in  his  chair 

in  order  to  keep  the  House  in  session  at  the 

close  of  the  last  Parliament,   undertook  the 

levying  of  ship  money  upon  the  death  of  Noy; 

he  advanced  the  fortunes  of  the  writs  by  making 

them  applicable  to  the  entire  kingdom.     On 

Second        the  4th  August,  1635,  the  demand  made  its 

^  '  st        second  appearance  ;  it  was  to  cover  not  only 

1635.  the  needs  of  a  navy,  but  to  furnish  "a  spring 

Its  general  .  .  . 

application  and  magazine  that  should  nave  no  bottom, 
and  for  an  everlasting  supply  for  all  occa- 
sions." *  Instructions  were  included  in  the 
writs  to  the  sheriffs,  by  which  the  ships  could 
be  compounded  for  by  the  counties,  and  the 
amount  transmitted  to  the  treasurer  of  the 
navy  for  his  Majesty's  uses.  Payment  was  to 
be  enforced. 

Third  writ,       A  year  later,   the  9th  October,    1636,   the 


ber  1636  third  assessment  was  laid.  Murmuring  against 
the  writs,  which  was  common  enough  amongst 
the  lower  classes  in  1635,  now  spread  to  men 
of  great  position.  The  earls  of  Danby  and 
Warwick  and  other  peers  protested  to  the 
king,  not  so  much  against  the  amount  of  the 
1  Clarendon,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  i,  136. 


THE  STUARTS  285 

tax,  as  against  the  unconstitutional  manner  of 
its  levy.  But  Charles  found  it  too  profitable 
a  means  of  income  to  let  go ;  he  was  the  richer 
each  year  by  some  .£200,000. 

The  courts,  however,  seemed  of  contrary 
mind  to  the  rest  of  the  nation.  In  November, 
1635,  at  the  instance  of  Sir  John  Finch,  the 
following  extra-judicial  opinion  was  delivered  Extra 
by  the  judges:  —  "I  am  of  the  opinion  that, 
as  when  the  benefit  doth  more  particularly 
redound  to  the  ports  or  maritime  parts,  as  in 
case  of  piracy  or  depredations  upon  the  seas, 
that  the  charge  hath  been,  and  may  be  law- 
fully imposed  upon  them  according  to  prece- 
dents of  former  times;  so  when  the  good  and 
safety  of  the  kingdom  in  general  is  concerned, 
and  the  whole  kingdom  in  danger  (of  which  his 
Majesty  is  the  only  judge),  then  the  charge 
of  the  defence  ought  to  be  borne  by  all  the 
realm  in  general.  This  I  hold  agreeably  both 
to  law  and  reason."  * 

On  the   7th  February,   1637,  Charles  laid 

the  case  before  the  judges  of  the  Exchequer 

extra- judicially  in  much  the  same  terms  as 

the  opinion  of  1635.    He  requested  an  answer 

i  Gardiner,  Canst,  Doc.  108,  note  2. 


286  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

to  the  following  question:  —  "When  the  good 
and  safety  of  the  Kingdom  in  general  is  con- 
cerned, and  the  whole  Kingdom  in  danger, 
whether  may  not  the  King,  by  writ  under  the 
Great  Seal  of  England,  command  all  the 
subjects  of  our  Kingdom  at  their  charge  to 
provide  and  furnish  such  a  number  of  ships, 
with  men,  victuals,  and  munition,  and  for 
such  time  as  we  shall  think  fit  for  the  defence 
and  safeguard  of  the  kingdom  from  such 
danger  and  peril,  and  by  law  compel  the 
doing  thereof,  in  case  of  refusal  or  refractori- 
ness: and  whether  in  such  a  case  is  not  the 
King  the  sole  judge  both  of  the  danger,  and 
when  and  how  the  same  is  to  be  prevented 
and  avoided?"  l  The  opinion  of  the  judges 
was  ostensibly  unanimous  in  favor  of  the 
crown;  Coke  and  Hutton  as  a  matter  of  fact 
dissented,  but  subscribed  on  the  principle 
that  the  opinion  of  the  majority  should  be 
that  of  the  whole  body. 

In  the  face  of  this  sweeping  and  conclusive 

opinion  delivered  privately  to  the  king,  there 

was   apparently   no   hope  for   any   one   who 

should  have  to  answer  in  that  court  for  refusal. 

1  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  108,  109. 


THE  STUARTS  287 

Shortly  thereafter,  however,  such  a  case  came  Hampden's 
up.  John  Hampden,  a  gentleman  of  Bucking- 
hamshire, had  refused  to  pay  the  assessment 
of  20s.  which  was  laid  upon  some  of  his  lands, 
and  by  reason  of  his  refusal  was  summoned 
to  the  Exchequer.  He  appeared  and  answered 
to  the  charge  in  November,  1637.  He  was  de- 
fended by  the  brilliant  Oliver  St.  John  and 
Mr.  Holborne.  Solicitor  General  Littleton 
and  Attorney  General  Bankes  conducted  the 
case  for  the  crown. 

The  question  upon  which  the  case  was 
argued  may  be  phrased  as  follows:  "Whether 
the  king  had  a  right  on  his  own  allegation  of 
public  danger  to  require  an  inland  county 
to  furnish  ships,  or  a  prescribed  sum  of  money 
by  way  of  commutation,  for  the  defense  of 
the  kingdom  ?  "  l  The  argument  for  Hampden 
can  be  summed  up  under  five  heads : 

I.  The   law   and   constitution   of  England  The  case 
provide    certain    ordinary    revenues    for    the  Defendant 
defense  of  the  realm.    These  comprehend  the 
military    forces    provided    by    those    holding 
lands  by  military  tenure;  the  liability  of  the 
Cinque   Ports    and    others    holding   similarly 
i  2  Hallam,  Const.  Hist.  Eng,  23. 


288  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

to  provide  a  quota  of  ships,  by  reason  of  their 
tenure;  the  feudal  and  other  revenues  inherent 
in  the  crown ;  the  customs  on  wool  and  leather, 
and  tunnage  and  poundage,  and  other  special 
dues  which  were  wont  to  be  granted  to  the 
king  in  time  of  danger.1 

II.  The  law  and  constitution  of  England 
provide  certain  extraordinary  revenues  when 
the   ordinary  revenues   should   prove  insuffi- 
cient, and  for  the  defense  of  the  realm.    Chief 
among    these    were    the    subsidies    and    aids 
which    were    granted    in    Parliament.      That 
Parliament   was    the    only    body    capable    of 
levying  these  charges  was  exhibited  by  the 
fact  that  the  kings  of  England  were  wont  to 
denominate     their     arbitrary     exactions     as 
"loans"  and  "benevolences." 

III.  The  statutes  of  the  realm  provided  in 
most  emphatic  language  that  no  tax  should 
be  levied  on  the  subject  without  the  consent 
of  Parliament.    The  charter  of  the  Conqueror, 
Magna  Carta,  especially  Confirmatio  Cartarum 
and  De  Tallagio  non  Concedendo,  the  statutes 

1  Mr.  St.  John  did  not  enter  into  a  consideration  of  the 
legality  of  the  modern  impositions  of  the  outports,  levied  by 
authority  of  the  Crown. 


THE  STUARTS  289 

passed  subsequently  under  Edward  III,  and 
more  than  all  the  others,  the  Petition  of  Right, 
showed  the  utter  illegality  of  the  ship  money. 

IV.  The  citations  by  the  crown  of  exactions 
similar  to  the  ship  money  did  not  demonstrate 
the  lawfulness  of  the  demand;  they  merely 
showed   precedents  of   such  a  general   levy. 
The  case  must  be  decided  by  law,  not  by 
precedents,  —  "  judicandum  est  legibus  non  ex- 
emplis." 

V.  In  the  present  instance,  the  perils  which 
the  king  cited  were  insufficient  to  justify  an 
unusual  demand  for  money.     The  precedent 
of  the  arbitrary  actions  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
at  the  time  of  the  Armada  could  in  no  wise  be 
taken  as  a  justification  for  so  great  an  exercise 
of   the   prerogative   when   the   nation  was  at 
peace  with   the  world;  the  piratical   acts   of 
Turkish  corsairs  or  even  the  insolence  of  rival 
neighbors    could    not    be    reckoned    amongst 
those  imminent  perils  for  which  a  Parliament 
could  provide  too  tardily.1 

1  The  digest  of  the  argument  here  given  is  based  upon 
that  of  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  446,  447,  who 
follows  closely  2  Hallam,  Const.  Hist.  Eng.  23-27.  Extracts 
from  St.  John's  speech  are  given  in  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc. 
109-115. 


290  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

Ajudg-  The  judgment  was  in  favor  of  the  crown 

the  crown  seven  to  five.  Three  of  the  minority  based 
their  decision  upon  the  particular  rather  than 
on  general  grounds;  Croke  and  Hutton,  how- 
ever, denied  the  general  contention  of  the 
crown  absolutely.  Croke  maintained  that  tax- 
ation save  by  authority  of  Parliament  is  con- 
trary to  the  common  law  and  to  the  statutes; 
that  the  exaction  could  not  be  defended  upon 
the  plea  of  imminent  danger;  and  that  the  ex- 
tension to  inland  counties  was  not  legal  or 
warranted  by  any  legal  precedent.  The  seven 
judges  whose  opinions  were  favorable  to  the 
king,  upheld  the  prerogative  of  the  crown  as 
against  the  legislative  power  of  Parliament. 
Sir  John  Finch,  chief  justice  of  the  common 
pleas,  stated  their  attitude  clearly.  "No  act 
of  Parliament,"  he  said,  "  can  bar  a  king  of  his 
regality,  as  that  no  lands  should  hold  of  him, 
or  bar  him  of  the  allegiance  of  his  subjects  or 
the  relative  on  his  part,  as  trust  and  power 
to  defend  his  people;  therefore  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment to  take  away  his  royal  power  in  the  de- 
fense of  his  kingdom  are  void;  they  are  void 
acts  of  Parliament  to  bind  the  king  not  to  com- 
mand the  subjects,  their  persons,  and  goods, 


THE  STUARTS  291 

and  I  say  their  money  too;  for  no  acts  of  Par- 
liament make  any  difference."  l 

The  effect  of  this  decision  upon  the  minds 
of  the  people  was  immediate;  it  changed  the 
payment  of  the  ship  money  from  a  semi- 
voluntary  gift  to  the  king  into  an  extortion 
enforced  by  him.  Previously  they  had  sup- 
posed that  the  ship  money  was  paid  out  of 
sufferance,  that  if  it  became  too  heavy,  an 
appeal  to  the  courts  would  be  sufficient  to 
remove  it;  now  they  felt  that  the  king  had 
them  by  the  throat  and  could  force  them  to 
do  as  he  willed.  Never  was  there  a  clearer 
issue;  the  king  and  his  prerogative  against 
the  commons  and  their  long-developing  rights; 
the  power  of  the  king  to  levy  taxes  upon  his 
own  arbitrary  authority  against  taxation  by 
the  will  of  the  taxed  as  expressed  in  Parlia- 
ment. 

The  Scottish  rebellion  of  1638  which  was 
waged  for  the  defense  of  religious  freedom,  and 
the  interval  of  peace,  beginning  the  18th  June, 
1639,  which  was  used  by  Scots  and  English 
alike  as  a  period  of  armament,  proved  too 

i  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Canst.  Hist.  448.  2  Hallam, 
Canst.  Hist.  Eng.  30. 


292  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

much  for  Charles's  irregular  financial  supply. 

Reluctantly  he  called  his  Fourth  Parliament, 

The  Short    commonly  known  as  the  Short  Parliament,  for 

the  13th  APril>  164°-  The  assembly  was, 
strange  to  say,  most  moderate  and  loyal  to 
the  king.  Charles  through  the  ex-Speaker 
Sir  John  Finch,  now  Lord  Keeper,  asked  for  a 
large  supply  immediately,  saying  that  he  would 
listen  to  grievances  afterwards.1 

The  commons  recalled  instances  wherein  the 
royal  word  had  been  broken,  and  preferred  to 
withhold  supply  until  the  end  of  the  session, 
according  to  their  familiar  habit.  They  pro- 
ceeded to  inquire  into  the  Hampden  case, 
and  considered  in  detail  the  various  occasions 
upon  which  the  law  had  been  broken  during 
their  eleven  years'  recess.  They  appointed 
a  committee  to  confer  with  the  lords  over  a 
long  list  of  grievances,  divided  into  the  three 
departments  of  innovations  in  religion,  inva- 
sions of  private  property,  and  breaches  of 
parliamentary  privilege.2  At  this  Charles 
came  forward  with  a  gigantic  piece  of  tact- 
lessness; thinking  he  saw  a  hole  through 
which  he  could  escape,  he  tried  to  win  the 

i  2  Part.  Hist.  532,  533.  '  2  Ibid.  561,  562. 


THE  STUARTS  293 

lords  to  his  standard.  Applying  to  them, 
they  voted  and  communicated  to  the  House 
of  Commons  that  "his  Majesty's  supply  should 
have  the  precedency,  and  be  resolved  on  before 
any  other  matter  whatsoever."  *  To  the 
commons  this  appeared  an  arrant  breach  of 
privilege,  it  being  their  right  that  money  bills  Clash  be- 


should  originate  in  their  House.  The  lords 
immediately  adopted  a  conciliatory  tone;  they 
renounced  any  intention  of  offending  the  com- 
mons. "The  bill  of  subsidies,"  they  admitted, 
"ought  to  have  its  inception  and  beginning  in 
your  House;  and  that  when  it  comes  up  to 
their  lordships,  and  is  by  them  agreed  unto, 
it  must  be  returned  back  to  you  and  be  by 
your  House  presented."  2 

The  king  had  reason  to  regret  his  intrusion 
since  the  dispute  which  he  had  caused  delayed 
a  supply  from  the  commons  so  much  the 
more.  He  now  had  recourse  to  a  compromise. 
He  offered  the  withdrawal  of  his  claim  to 
ship  money  in  consideration  of  a  grant  of 
twelve  subsidies,3  payable  in  three  years. 
The  commons,  perceiving  that  the  proposi- 

i  2  Parl.  Hist.  362,  363.  *  2  Ibid.  568. 

a  2  Ibid.  570,  571. 


294  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

tioii,  if  acceded  to,  involved  the  tacit  admis- 
sion that  the  ship  money  had  been  justly 
laid,  insomuch  as  its  removal  was  obtainable 
only  by  purchase,  refused  to  enter  into  the 
agreement.  But  the  effect  of  the  message 
was  not  quite  lost;  on  the  contrary  it  seemed 
as  though  the  king  would  shortly  receive  his 
grant.  At  the  moment  when  the  commons 
were  on  the  point  of  deciding  upon  a  supply, 
the  amount  to  be  determined  subsequently, 
Sir  Henry  Vane,  secretary  of  state,  precipi- 
tated a  crisis.  He  asserted  that  the  supply 
would  not  be  accepted  unless  it  were  to  the 
amount  and  in  the  manner  designated  in  the 
king's  message.1  The  next  day,  the  5th  May, 
the  king  dissolved  his  three-weeks-old  Parlia- 
ment, to  his  own  great  distress  and  the  trepi- 
dation of  the  nation. 

Dissoiu-  Charles   employed    the   six   months   which 

Parlia-  intervened  between  the  dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment ment  and  the  summons  of  the  Long  Parlia- 
ment in  his  usual  occupations.  He  locked  up 
several  members  of  the  House.  He  exacted 
forced  loans,  created  new  monopolies,  and 
levied  ship  money.  Prosecutions  followed 

i  2  ParL  Hist.  582,  584. 


THE  STUARTS  295 

swiftly  upon  refusals  to  pay.  "Coat  and 
conduct  money,"  a  new  exaction  from  the 
counties,  was  demanded  to  cover  the  traveling 
expenses  of  recruits  on  their  way  to  fight 
against  the  Scots.  He  obtained  six  subsidies 
from  the  clergy  whom  he  illegally  kept  in 
convocation  after  the  dissolution  of  Parlia- 
ment. 

The  wind  of  opposition  was  rising  to  a  gale.  Sitting  of 
With  the  sitting  of  the  Long  Parliament,  which 


convened  on  the    3rd    November,   1640,   the  ™ent,3rd 

November, 
tempest  broke.     The  immediate  occasion  of 

the  summons  was  the  universal  demand  of 
the  people  and  the  peers  for  a  session  of  Parlia- 
ment, coupled  with  emptiness  of  the  treasury 
which  came  with  the  commencement  of  the 
disastrous  Scottish  war.  The  composition  of 
the  commons  was  overwhelmingly  anti-regal  ;  l 
the  popular  leaders  had  been  at  work  in  the 
counties  ever  since  the  dissolution  of  the  Short 
Parliament  looking  to  the  return  of  a  strong 
majority  in  opposition  to  the  king.  The  as- 
sembly convened  full  of  the  idea  that  "they 
had  now  had  an  opportunity  to  make  their 
country  happy  by  removing  all  grievances  and 
1  See  the  list  of  members  in  2  Parl.  Hist.  597-629. 


296  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

pulling  up  the  causes  of  them  by  the  roots,  if 
all  men  would  do  their  duties."  l 

Parliament  lost  no  time  in  setting  about  its 
work.  Proceedings  were  immediately  insti- 
tuted looking  to  the  impeachment  of  the  Earl 
of  Strafford,  Archbishop  Laud,  Finch,  and 
six  of  the  judges  who  had  figured  in  the  ship 
money  case.  Various  victims  of  the  tyrannical 
jurisdiction  of  the  Star  Chamber  were  set  at 
liberty.  The  commons  exhibited  their  un- 
compromising hostility  to  the  king  by  voting 
assistance  to  their  "brethren"  the  Scots,  whose 
army  was  in  possession  of  much  territory  on 
the  English  side  of  the  border.  They  granted 
them  £25,000  a  month  as  long  as  their  stay  in 
England  should  be  needful,  and  in  addition 
£300,000  as  an  indemnity. 

With  such  acts  of  open  opposition  to  the 
king  in  process,  it  was  natural  that  Parliament 
should  set  itself  to  clean  up  all  the  abuses 
which  of  recent  times  had  crept  into  the 
government.  Its  actions  were  not  subversive 
of  the  constitution;  on  the  contrary  it  left 
unassailed  many  prerogatives  of  the  king. 

1  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  455,  quoting  1  Clar- 
endon, Hist.  171. 


THE  STUARTS  297 

On  the  22nd  June,  1641,  Parliament  granted 
to  the  king  tunnage  and  poundage  for  a  length 
of  time  somewhat  less  than  two  months  *  and 
in  the  same  bill  declared,  "  that  it  is  and  hath 
been  the  ancient  right  of  the  subjects  of  this 
realm,  that  no  subsidy,  custom,  impost,  or 
other  charge  whatsoever  ought  or  may  be  laid 
or  imposed  upon  any  merchandise  exported  or 
imported  by  subjects,  denizens,  or  aliens  with-  Royal 
out  common  consent  in  Parliament."  2  The  exactionof 

tunnage 
Act   prescribed    also    the   punishment   which  and 

should  be  inflicted  upon  officers  who  in  time  to  declared6 
come  should  exact  payments  not  sanctioned  by 
Parliament.  They  were  to  "  incur  and  sustain 
the  pains,  penalties,  and  forfeitures  ordained 
and  provided  by  the  Statute  of  Provision  and 
Premunire  made  in  the  sixteenth  year  of 
King  Richard  II,  and  shall  also  from  thence- 
forth be  disabled  during  his  life  to  see  or  im- 
plead  any  person  in  any  action  real,  mixed, 
or  personal,  or  in  any  court  whatsoever." 
Thus  was  it  enacted  that  tunnage  and  pound- 
age exacted  by  authority  of  the  crown  was  il- 
legal, and  protected  merchants  from  being  sued 

1  The  time  was  from  25th  May,  to  15th  July,  1641. 

2  The  Act  is  given  in  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  88-91. 


298  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

by  the  customs  officers  in  case  of  refusal  to  pay 

the  unlawful  imposition.     The  king  received 

tunnage  and  poundage  by  six  subsequent  acts 

for  short  terms  down  to  the  2nd  July,  1642. 

The  Ship         Six  weeks  later,  on  the  7th  August,  1641, 

A  ?ntL       Parliament   turned   its   attention   toward   the 

Act,  7th 

August,       matter  of  ship  money.    On  that  date  it  passed 

1641 

an  "Act  for  the  declaring  unlawful  and  void 
the  late  proceedings  touching  Ship-Money, 
and  for  the  vacating  of  all  records  and  proc- 
ess concerning  the  same."  l  The  act  cites 
the  Hampden  Case  and  others  of  a  similar 
nature  and  outlines  the  plea  of  the  royal  pre- 
rogative as  given  in  the  extra-judicial  opinion 
of  the  judges.  It  condemns  "all  which  writs 
and  proceedings"  as  being  "utterly  against 
the  law  of  the  land."  In  greater  detail  it 
enacts  "that  the  said  charge  imposed  upon  the 
subject  for  the  providing  and  furnishing  of 
ships  commonly  called  ship  money,  and  the 
said  extra-judicial  opinion  of  the  said  jus- 
tices .  .  .  and  the  said  judgment  against 
John  Hampden,  were  and  are  contrary  to 
and  against  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm, 
the  right  of  property,  the  liberty  of  the  subjects, 
1  The  Act  is  given  in  Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  115. 


THE  STUARTS  299 

former  resolutions  in  Parliament  and  the 
Petition  of  Right."  The  act  also  provided 
that  all  particulars  desired  in  the  Petition  of 
Right  should  be  "strictly  holden  and  observed 
as  in  the  same  Petition  they  are  prayed  and 
expressed."  The  ship  writs  and  the  Hampden 
judgment  are  specifically  annulled.1 

Thus  came  to  an  end  the  long  chain  of 
statutes  which  Parliament  from  its  inception 
had  been  forging  to  fetter  the  arms  of  the  king 
straining  toward  the  prize  of  arbitrary  taxa- 
tion. The  virtue  of  the  Long  Parliament  is 
thus  commented  upon  by  Hallam:  "In  the 
first  place,"  he  says,  "  it  will  appear  .  .  .  that 
they  made  scarce  any  material  change  in  our 
constitution,  such  as  it  had  been  established 
and  recognized  under  the  house  of  Plantag- 
enet.  .  .  .  Thus  in  by  far  the  greater  part 
of  the  enactments  of  1641,  the  monarchy  lost 
nothing  that  it  anciently  possessed;  and  the 
balance  of  our  constitution  might  seem  rather 
to  have  been  restored  to  its  former  equipoise, 

1  By  subsequent  statutes,  an  end  was  put  to  purveyance, 
distraint  of  knighthood,  and  forest  extension.  Parliament 
then  came  forward  with  a  grant  of  six  subsidies  and  a  poll  tax 
equivalent  to  six  subsidies  more. 


300  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

than  to  have  undergone  any  change.  .  .  . 
It  is  to  be  observed  in  the  second  place,  that 
by  these  salutary  restrictions,  and  some  new 
retrenchments  of  pernicious  or  abused  preroga- 
tive the  Long  Parliament  formed  our  consti- 
tution such  nearly  as  it  now  exists."  *  The 
legislation  of  1641  in  effect  restored  to  Parlia- 
ment what  power  it  nominally  held  two  cen- 
turies before. 

A  current  of  reaction  now  set  in  favorable  to 
the  king.  The  leaders  in  the  commons  dis- 
covered that  the  popular  support  to  their 
measures  was  becoming  weak,  that  the  royalist 
party  was  recruiting  adherents  from  the  former 
supporters  of  the  opposition,  that  their  own 
backing  was  by  a  party,  not  by  the  nation. 
With  the  hope  of  winning  back  full  national 
The  adherence  to  Parliament,  the  Grand  Remon- 

Remon-       strance  was  framed  by  the  House  of  Commons 
strance,       an(j  presented  to  the  king,  on  the  1st  December 

1st  Decem-  G 

ber,  1641      1641. 2    It  purported  to  show  the  present  state 

of  the  kingdom,  the  evil  conditions  which 
Parliament  had  succeeded  in  bettering,  and 
the  darkness  of  the  future,  if  support  were 

i  2  Hallam,  Const.  Hint.  Eng.  138,  139. 
'Gardiner,  Const.  Doc.  127-155. 


THE  STUARTS  301 

withdrawn  from  Parliament.  With  respect  to 
taxation,  the  Remonstrance  recites  the  various 
illegalities  and  abuses  which  the  crown  had 
practiced  and  the  steps  which  the  commons 
had  taken  to  provide  for  their  correction.  For 
future  safeguard  against  their  return  it  sug- 
gests "that  for  the  better  preservation  of  the 
liberties  and  laws,  all  illegal  grievances  and 
exactions  should  be  presented  and  punished  at 
the  sessions  and  assizes;  and  that  judges  and 
justices  should  be  sworn  to  the  due  execution 
of  the  Petition  of  Right  and  other  laws." 

With  the  delivery  of  the  Grand    Remon-  The 

strance,  the  contest  for  Parliamentary  taxa-  ?untfn. 

Revolution 

tion  became  of  relatively  small  moment  in 
the  great  conflicts  of  the  Puritan  Revolution. 
The  struggle  over  the  impeachment  of  Pym 
and  the  popular  leaders  in  the  House,  the 
attempt  of  the  king  to  secure  absolute  com- 
mand of  the  militia,  the  battles  on  the  field 
and  in  the  House  of  Commons  during  the 
Civil  War,  the  events  which  led  up  to  the 
execution  of  Charles  —  these  were  neither 
immediately  caused  by  the  conflict  over  taxa- 
tion nor  did  they  have  immediate  effect  upon 
it.  Taxation  up  to  1641  was  a  prime  cause  of 


302  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

opposition  to  the  crown;  thereafter  it  ceased 
to  be  of  so  great  importance. 

Accession  Charles  II  came  to  the  throne  in  1660  after 
n,  1660  the  English  people  had  made  an  eleven  years' 
trial  of  a  military  despotism  under  a  good 
and  moderate  despot.  His  first  Parliament, 
that  of  1660,  granted  him  the  proceeds  of 
the  customs  for  life.  During  the  period  of  the 
Commonwealth,  the  freedom  from  the  feudal 
charges  had  been  most  agreeable  to  those 
holding  of  the  crown.  Consequently,  this 
Parliament  set  itself  to  regulate  the  confused 
system  of  military  tenure  by  the  simple  expedi- 
ent of  abolition.  The  Great  Contract  which 
had  been  proposed  under  James  I  for  the 
same  purpose,  had  been  advocated  in  vain. 
Now,  however,  the  effort  was  successful.  The 
feudal  incidents,  such  as  wardships,  marriages, 
knight's  service,  as  well  as  the  three  feudal 
aids,  knighting  the  king's  son,  ransoming  the 
king,  and  furnishing  dowry  for  his  eldest 
daughter,  were  done  away  with.  By  this 
great  deprivation,  the  royal  revenue  was 
naturally  much  prejudiced.  Parliament  made 
up  the  loss  by  granting  to  the  crown  an  heredi- 
tary excise  on  beer  and  some  other  liquors, 


THE  STUARTS  303 

increasing   the   royal  revenue  to  the  annual 
value  of  ^l^OO.OOO.1 

In  1665  the  expenses  incident  to  the  Dutch  Approprfa- 
War  made  it  possible  to  establish  a  principle  suppiieS| 
which  had  been  touched  upon  from  time  166S 
to  time  since  the  days  of  Henry  III.  Sir 
George  Downing,  in  the  subsidy  bill  of  that 
year,  introduced  the  provision  that  the  money 
raised  in  accordance  with  the  bill,  ,£1,250,000, 
be  applicable  solely  to  the  prosecution  of  the 
war,  and  that  the  money  could  not  be  paid 
out  by  the  Exchequer  save  by  special  warrant 
stating  that  as  the  purpose  of  the  payment. 
Clarendon  opposed  the  measure  as  an  en- 
croachment upon  the  honor  of  the  crown,  but 
Charles  himself  was  not  averse  to  it,  mainly  by 
reason  of  his  belief  that  the  promised  revenue 
would  be  thus  more  acceptable  to  bankers  as 
the  security  for  loans.  The  appointment  in  the 
following  year  of  a  commission  to  examine  the 
public  accounts  in  order  to  determine  the  faith- 
fulness with  which  the  provision  was  carried 
out,  clinched  the  principle  underlying  its  orig- 
inal passage.  The  bill  was  the  natural  conse- 

1  For  further  details  see  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const. 
Hist.  483,  484;  and  2  Dowell,  Taxation  and  Taxes,  8  et  seq. 


304  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

quence  of  the  liberty  of  appropriation  enjoyed 
under  the  Commonwealth.  The  exercise  of 
the  principle  of  appropriating  supplies  in  de- 
tail was  not  carried  to  its  full  extent  until  after 
1689.  Its  importance  is  difficult  to  overesti- 
mate. It  placed  the  executive  power  in  a  posi- 
tion of  perfect  dependence  upon  the  will  of 
Parliament,  for  the  money  requisite  for  any 
administrative  act  was  to  be  forthcoming  only 
in  accordance  with  the  previously  expressed 
intent  of  Parliament. 

Reign  of  The  reign  of  James  II,  who  came  to  the 
throne  in  1685  at  the  death  of  Charles,  was 
retrogressive.  He  assumed  the  crown  with 
the  full  intention  of  exercising  arbitrary  au- 
thority, and  if  he  had  not  tried  to  substi- 
tute Catholicism  for  the  Established  Church, 
there  is  little  to  show  that  he  would  not  at 
least  for  a  time  have  succeeded.  Before 
the  summons  of  his  Parliament,  which  he 
called  reluctantly  notwithstanding  a  lapse  of 
five  years  under  Charles  without  one,  he  con- 
tinued to  himself  the  payment  of  the  customs 
duties  by  proclamation.  This  illegal  act  met 
with  no  serious  objection  from  Parliament 
when  it  met.  Nor  was  this  all;  Parliament 


THE  STUARTS  305 

raised  the  permanent  revenue  of  the  king  to 
the  annual  amount  of  .£2,000,000,  and  on 
the  suppression  of  Monmouth's  rebellion, 
gave  him  ,£700,0000  more  wherewith  to  sup- 
port a  standing  army.  Thus  did  Parliament 
make  James  financially  independent,  pro- 
vided he  was  content  to  live  within  reason, 
and  gave  him  an  army  in  addition.  This  was 
a  combination  of  powers  which  on  the  Conti- 
nent had  sufficed  to  create  despotisms. 

That  it  did  not  create  a  despotism  in  Eng-  William 
land  is  not  greatly  to  be  wondered  at.  James  and  Mary 
set  himself  to  fighting  the  battle  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  church  in  England.  The  result 
was  almost  immediate  disaster.  On  the  5th 
November,  1688,  William,  Prince  of  Orange, 
and  Stadtholder  of  the  United  Provinces, 
landed  at  Torbay  in  Devonshire.  He  was 
requested  by  seventy  of  the  lords  spiritual 
and  temporal  (all  who  were  then  in  London), 
by  the  members  of  the  House  of  Commons 
which  met  in  the  last  Parliament  of  Charles  II, 
and  the  corporation  of  the  City  of  London, 
to  assume  the  provisional  government  of  the 
kingdom  pending  a  session  of  Parliament. 
This  was  called  for  the  22nd  January,  1688- 


306  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

89.  On  the  13th  February  following,  a  tender 
of  the  crown  was  made  to  William,  on  the  con- 
ditions denominated  in  the  recently  framed 
Declaration  of  Right.  In  it  the  illegal  acts  of 
King  James  were  recited  and  the  announce- 
ment was  made  that  the  throne  had  been  ab- 
dicated ;  it  was  asserted  also  that  certain  speci- 
fied acts  of  King  James  were  illegal,  and  a 
resolution  was  appended  settling  the  crown  on 
William  and  Mary.  William,  speaking  for 
himself  and  for  the  Princess  Mary,  "  thankfully 
accepted  what  had  been  offered  them." 

The  Bill  Tne  Decjaration  of  Right,  with  some  slight 

of  Rights, 

1689  but   essential   changes,    was   incorporated   at 

the  second  session  of  this  Parliament,  the 
25th  October,  1689,  in  statutory  form  known 
subsequently  as  the  Bill  of  Rights.1  In  the 
matter  of  taxation,  it  sums  up  in  a  few  clauses 
the  whole  principle  which  had  been  in  course 
of  evolution  since  the  German  chieftains 
received  gifts  of  cattle  and  fruits  from  their 
people. 

It  states  that  King  James  "did  endeavor 
to  subvert  and  extirpate  .  .  .  the  laws    and 

1  The  text  is  in  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.  512- 
518  and  in  Adams  and  Stephens,  Set.  Doc.  462-469. 


THE  STUARTS  307 

liberties  of  this  kingdom  ...  by  levying 
money  for  and  to  the  use  of  the  crown,  by 
pretense  of  prerogative,  for  other  time  and  in 
other  manner  than  the  same  was  granted  by 
Parliament."  Then  follows  the  definite  asser- 
tion, "that  levying  money  for  or  to  the  use 
of  the  crown  by  pretense  of  prerogative, 
without  grant  of  Parliament  for  longer  time 
or  in  other  manner  than  the  same  is  or  shall 
be  granted,  is  illegal."  The  clause  which 
gave  to  these  statements  the  force  of  law, 
emphasizes  the  power  of  Parliament.  "All 
which  their  Majesties  are  contented  and 
pleased,"  so  it  goes,  "shall  be  declared,  en- 
acted, and  established  by  authority  of  this  pres- 
ent Parliament,  and  shall  stand,  remain,  and 
be  the  law  of  this  realm  forever  ;  and  the  same 
are  by  their  said  Majesties,  by  and  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and 
temporal,  and  Commons,  in  Parliament  as- 
sembled, and  by  the  authority  of  the  same, 
declared,  enacted  and  established  accord- 


With  the  passing  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  the 
principle  was  vindicated  in  its  fullness  that 
Parliament  rather  than  the  crown  has  the 


308  PARLIAMENTARY  TAXATION 

power  to  tax.  Within  Parliament  itself  the 
power  of  laying  taxes  had  undergone  further 
differentiation  in  that  the  House  of  Commons 
claimed  the  sole  right  of  initiating  tax  levies. 
The  theory  deduced  therefrom,  that  the 
House  of  Commons  has  sole  control  over 
money  bills  and  that  interference  by  the  House 
of  Lords  is  an  assumption  of  power  beyond 
the  constitutional  rights  of  that  House,  came 
up  for  fuller  definition  220  years  later.  The 
corollary  principle  that  Parliament  has  the 
power  to  appropriate  supplies  for  specific  pur- 
poses and  that  it  can  demand  an  accounting 
for  the  money  so  appropriated  were  accorded 
general  acquiescence  then  and  thereafter. 


INDEX 

Accounts,  examination  of,  186-188;  appointment  of  treasurers 

under  Richard  II,  191-194;  under  Charles  H,  303;  after 

Bill  of  Rights,  308. 
Aid  purfille  marier,  Edward  I,  121. 
Ancient  Customs,  rate  stated,  165. 
Anglo-Saxons,  their  early  ideas  of  taxation,  3. 
Appropriation    of    Supplies,     184-186;     declaration    under 

Henry  VI,  210;  under  Charles  II,  303-304;  after  Bill  of 

Rights,  308. 
Assize  of  Arms,  35. 
Auxilium  vicecomitis,  27,  29. 

Bate  Case,  241-242;  opinions  of  the  Barons,  242-244;  posi- 
tion of  Parliament,  244;  Book  of  Rates,  245;  remonstrance 
by  Parliament,  246-248. 

Becket,  Thomas,  his  controversy  with  Henry  II,  27-30. 

Benevolence,  a  form  of  extortion,  214;  prohibiting  statute  of 
Richard  III,  216-217;  Morton's  Crotch,  220;  Shoring  or 
Under-propping  Act,  221 ;  Henry  VIII's  "amiable  graunte," 
225;  under  James  I,  253;  St.  John's  Case,  253-254;  under 
Charles  I,  264,  267,  272,  294. 

Bigod,  Roger,  dispute  with  Edward  I,  135-138. 

Bill  of  Rights,  306-308. 

Bohun,  Humfrey,  dispute  with  Edward  I,  135-138. 

Book  of  Rates,  245. 

Buckingham,  262-264;  265,  269. 

Burghers,  at  Parliament  of  1265, 102-103;  acquire  function  of 
taxing,  116-119. 

Carta  Mercatoria,  158;  complaint  against,  162. 

Carucage,  43,  note  1;  imposition  by  Richard  I,  43;  a  revival 

of  the  Danegeld,  35,  note  1;  levy  of  1198,  44;  "assessed" 

by  the  Common  Council,  77-78. 
309 


310  INDEX 

Charles  I,  his  accession,  261;  signs  Petition  of  Right,  269;  re- 
nounces tunnage  and  poundage,  274-275;  rules  without 
Parliament,  279. 

Charles  II,  his  accession,  302;  death,  304. 

Clergy,  John's  antagonism  of,  55;  need  of  their  assent  to 
taxation  recognized,  125;  meet  separately,  131,  note  1;  at- 
tempted taxation  of  by  Parliament,  1449,  210;  taxation 
after  English  Reformation,  228-230. 

Clerids  laicos,  133,  note  1;  tendency  to  disregard,  1297,  142, 
145;  adduced  in  1301,  156. 

Common  Council,  no  provision  for  London  representatives 
made  in  Magna  Carta,  66;  its  composition,  66-68;  repre- 
sentation, 68-69;  part  in  taxation  in  early  years  of  Henry 
III,  77-78;  grants  a  tax  on  movables,  1224,  79-81;  instances 
of  refusal,  1232  and  1237,  81-82;  refuses  a  grant,  1242,  85; 
its  control  over  taxation  in  1250,  91-92;  knights  of  the 
shires  called,  1254,  92-94;  its  control  of  disbursements,  see 
Disbursements. 

Commons,  House  of,  foreshadowed  in  Parliament  of  1265, 
102,  103;  meets  separately,  189,  190;  initiation  of  tax  levies, 
205-208,  308;  composition  dictated  by  James  I,  238;  re- 
vival of  impeachment,  256;  breach  of  privilege  in  Short 
Parliament,  293. 

Commune  Concilium,  see  Common  Council. 

Conditional  grant,  early  instance  of,  1224,  79-80;  repetitions, 
81-82. 

Confirmatio  Cartarum,  action  prior  to,  142-144;  signed  by 
Edward  I,  145;  analysis  of  tax  clauses,  146-150;  marks  a 
stage  in  Parliamentary  taxation,  152-153. 

Contributions,  voluntary,  among  the  early  Germans,  2,  3. 

Cowel's  "Interpreter,"  248. 

Customs,  in  early  England,  113,  note  1;  Carta  Mercatoria,  158; 
statutory  provision  for  control  by  Parliament,  Edward  HI, 
177-178;  persistence  of  the  struggle  over  customs,  179-180; 
Bate  Case,  242-244;  Book  of  Rates,  245;  collection  ordered 
by  Charles  I,  265;  omission  in  Petition  of  Right,  273.  See 
also  under  New  Customs,  Ancient  Customs. 


INDEX  311 

Danegeld,  origin  991  and  early  instances,  6-7;  authority  for 
its  exaction,  8-9;  reimposition  under  the  Conqueror,  15- 
16;  under  William  Rufus,  18;  Stephen's  promise  of  aboli- 
tion, 25-26;  supposed  cause  of  Woodstock  Controversy,  27, 
note  3;  its  disappearance  from  the  Rolls,  35,  and  note  1;  re- 
vival as  "carucage,"  35,  43. 

De  tallagio  non  concedendo,  150-151;  159,  167;  cited  in  Peti- 
tion of  Right,  271. 

Disbursements,  rejection  of  commission  for,  82-83;  85;  de- 
mand for  supervision  of,  87-88;  Matthew  Paris's  scheme, 
88. 

Distraint  of  Knighthood,  117,  123;  resorted  to  by  Charles  I, 
281;  made  illegal,  299,  note  1. 

Divine  right,  etc.,  in  taxation,  236;  assertion  by  Charles  I, 
266. 

Domesday  Survey,  17. 

Duties,  Bate  Case,  242-244;  Book  of  Rates,  245.  See  under 
Customs. 

Edward  I,  accession,  107;  his  character,  107-108;  dispute 
over  foreign  service,  134-137;  his  financial  preparations  for 
the  Gascon  expedition,  1297,  140;  his  part  in  attainment 
of  Parliamentary  taxation,  153;  last  years  of  his  reign,  157- 
159;  his  death,  159. 

Edward  II,  his  accession,  159-160;  deposition,  169. 

Edward  III,  accession  and  coronation,  169-170;  death  of,  188. 

Edward  IV,  accession,  213;  taxation  and  extra-Parliamentary 
exactions,  214-216. 

Elizabeth,  accession,  230;  character  of  her  government,  231. 

Examination  of  accounts,  see  Accounts. 

Excise,  granted  in  lieu  of  feudal  incidents,  302. 

Feudal  incidents,  done  away  with  under  Charles  II,  302.    See 

also  under  Great  Contract. 

Fifteenth  and  tenth,  becomes  a  fixed  sum,  183,  note  5. 
Fitz-Peter,  Geoffrey,  justiciar  of  John,  his  address  to  the 

sheriffs,  50;  his  edict  at  the  Council  of  St.  Albans,  58-59. 
Flambard,  Ranulf,  18. 


312  INDEX 

Folkland,  a  royal  means  of  revenue,  4. 

Forced  loans,  a  charge  against  Richard  II,  201,  202;  under 
Edward  IV,  214;  under  Henry  VIII,  226-228;  under  Eliza- 
beth, 232;  under  James  I,  251,  253;  under  Charles  I,  264, 
267,  272,  294. 

Foreign  service,  dispute  over,  1297,  134-137;  140-142. 

Fyrdwite,  a  counterpart  of  scutage,  32. 

Gaveston,  161,  163,  166;  his  death,  166,  note  1. 

Germans,  early  idea  of  taxation  among,  2-3. 

Grants,  delay  of  to  end  of  session,  204. 

Great  Contract,  249. 

Grievances,  redress  of;  principle  of,  in  1297,  144-145;  delay 
of  grants  to  end  of  session,  204;  principle  adhered  to, 
James  I,  252,  254-255;  under  Charles  I,  262-263. 

Hampden's  Case,  287-291;  293;  Long  Parliament  annuls  the 
judgment,  298. 

Henry  I,  character  of  his  reign,  19;  his  Charter,  19-20;  atti- 
tude toward  National  Council,  24. 

Henry  II,  accession  of,  26;  his  ancestry,  26;  his  controversy 
with  Becket,  27-30;  his  death,  37. 

Henry  III,  character  of  his  reign,  71-72;  his  accession  and 
the  regency,  72-73;  declared  of  age,  78;  restraint  under 
Provisions  of  Oxford,  97-99;  war  with  Montfort,  100-101; 
his  last  years,  104-106. 

Henry  IV,  his  accession,  202. 

Henry  V,  his  short  reign,  208-209. 

Henry  VI,  his  accession,  209;  character  of  his  reign,  210;  his 
overthrow,  211. 

Henry  VII,  accession,  217;  few  Parliaments  in  his  reign,  219; 
the  "new  found"  subsidy,  219-220;  extortions,  220-221. 

Henry  VIII,  accession  and  early  taxation,  221-222;  his  com- 
missions and  benevolences,  224;  death,  230. 

Heriot,  5. 

Inquest,  juries  of,  utilized  in  collection  of  Salad  in  Tithe,  36; 
in  carucage,  44. 


INDEX  313 

Inquest  of  Service,  52. 

Initiation  of  tax  levies  by  Commons,  205-208;  admission  by 
the  Lords,  293;  after  Bill  of  Rights,  308. 

James  I,  accession,  237;  dictates  composition  of  House  of 
Commons,  238;  Cowel's  "Interpreter,"  248;  the  Great  Con- 
tract, 249;  his  death,  261. 

James  II,  accession,  304;  his  absolutism  and  death,  305. 

John,  accession  of,  48;  early  taxation,  49-50;  his  scutages, 
50-52;  break  with  the  pope,  51;  antagonism  of  the  clergy, 
55;  his  death,  72. 

King,  Anglo-Saxon,  personal  leader  and  lord  of  national  land, 
3-4;  his  sources  of  income,  3-5. 

Knights  of  the  shire,  summoned  to  Parliament  by  Simon  de 
Montfort  and  Henry  III,  99-100;  attend  Parliament  of 
1264,  101;  Parliament  of  1205,  102-103;  their  attendance 
declared  "expedient,"  114-115;  meet  separately,  1294, 125- 
126. 

Lewes,  battle  and  Mise  of,  101. 

Lincoln,  Hugh  of,  his  refusal  of  assent  to  Richard  I's  de- 
mands, 44-46. 

Lincoln,  Parliament  of,  156. 
London,  provided  for  in  Magna  Carta,  65. 
Lords,  House  of,  meets  separately,  189-190. 
Lords  Ordainers,  163. 

Magna  Carta,  scutage  a  moving  cause,  50,  60;  events  leading 
to,  60-62;  granting  of  the  charter,  62;  Cap.  12,  63  and  note 
1,  64-66;  provision  for  London,  65;  Cap.  14,  66-67;  king 
remains  supreme  authority  over  taxation,  69-70;  omis- 
sions in  renewals,  70;  renewed  1216,  73;  second  reissue,  74- 
75;  reissue,  1224, 80;  reissue,  1297,  see  Confirmatio  Cartarum; 
reconfirmation,  1301,  156. 

Maletolt,  definition  of,  112;  in  Confirmatio  Cartarum,  147, 
148;  under  Edward  HE,  172-177;  statutory  abolition,  177; 
subsequent  violations  and  reaffirmations,  Edward  III,  180- 
183. 


314  INDEX 

Money  Bills,  initiation  by  Commons,  205-208,  233-235;  ad- 
mission by  Lords,  293;  after  Bill  of  Rights,  308. 

Monopolies,  under  Elizabeth,  232-233;  complaint  in  1604, 
238;  under  James  I,  253,  255;  prohibition  under  James  I, 
260;  reestablished  by  Charles  I,  280,  294. 

Montfort,  Simon  de,  at  Great  Council  of  1244,  87;  at  Council 
of  1254,  94;  summons  knights  of  the  shire  to  national  as- 
semblies, 100;  begins  civil  war,  1263,  100-101;  his  Parlia- 
ment of  1265,  102-103;  his  reputation  as  Creator  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  103;  his  death,  104. 

Movables,  taxation  of,  35;  Assize  of  Arms,  35;  Saladin  Tithe, 
35-36;  John's  demand  of  a  thirteenth,  55;  tax  on  granted 
by  Common  Council,  79-81;  grant  of  1275,  115-116; 
granted  at  Northampton  and  York,  118-119;  grants  in 
1290,  122;  in  1294,  126. 

National  Council,  its  powers  and  composition  under  Norman 
Kings,  14;  its  part  in  taxation,  15-16;  under  Henry  I,  22-24; 
its  place  under  Richard  I,  43;  townsmen  present  at  Council 
of  St.  Albans,  58;  representation  of  shires  at  Oxford,  59. 

New  Customs,  158;  tentative  abolition  of,  162,  164;  abolished 
in  1311, 165;  restored  for  a  year,  1322, 168,  note  1;  a  regular 
means  of  revenue,  1328,  172. 

Normandy,  loss  of,  1204,  56-57. 

Normans,  character  of  their  rule,  12-13. 

Northampton  and  York,  provincial  assemblies  at,  1283,  117- 
119. 

Nottingham,  Council  of,  1194,  42. 

Offices,  sale  of,  under  Richard  I,  42. 
Oxford,  John's  council  at,  59. 
Oxford,  Provisions  of,  97-99. 

Parliament,  first  use  of  the  name,  95,  note  1;  refusal  of  aid, 
1255,  96;  knights  of  the  shire  summoned  to,  99-100;  they 
attend  Parliament,  1264,  101;  Simon  de  Montfort's  Parlia- 
ment of  1265,  102,  103;  Parliament  of  1269,  105;  first 
Parliament  of  Edward  I,  109-110,  114;  events  leading  to 
the  Model  Parliament,  127-128;  "What  affects  all,  by  all 


INDEX  315 

should  be  approved,"  128-129;  session  of  the  Model  Parlia- 
ment, 131;  Parliament  of  1296,  132;  status  in  1297,  152; 
process  of  differentiation  in,  154-156  ff.;  statute  providing 
for  taxation  solely  by  Parliament,  Edward  III,  177-179;  in- 
crease in  power  under  Edward  III,  188-189;  separate  ses- 
sions of  the  houses,  189;  control  over  taxes,  Richard  II, 
194-197,  199;  delay  of  grants  to  end  of  session,  204;  initia- 
tion of  tax  levies,  205-208;  of  Henry  VIII,  219;  Wolsey's 
breach  of  privilege,  223;  attitude  toward  the  Bate  Case,  244, 
246-248;  the  Addled  Parliament,  251;  enactment  of  the 
Petition  of  Right,  269  ff.;  the  Short  Parliament,  292-294; 
the  Long  Parliament,  295-301;  declares  against  illegal  taxa- 
tion, 297;  the  Grand  Remonstrance,  300-301. 

Personal  property,  see  Movables. 

Petition  of  Right,  267-273. 

Poll-tax,  under  Richard  II,  graduated,  194,  197;  excites  the 
Rising  of  the  Villeins,  198. 

Prisage,  early  rate,  113,  note  1. 

Purveyance,  early  analogy  of,  5-6. 

Quo  Warranto,  a  writ,  116. 

Ralegh,  William  de,  his  offer  of  a  disbursing  commission, 

82-83. 
Redress  of  grievances,  principle  of,  in  1297,  144-145;  principle 

adhered  to,  James  I,  252,  254-255;  under  Charles  I,  262- 

263. 

Reformation,  profits  of,  228-230. 

Representation,  under  the  charter,  68,  69,  70;  as  it  was  in 
Henry  Ill's  National  Council,  91-92;  development  of  the 
principle  in  Simon  de  Montfort's  Parliament,  101-104; 
under  Edward  I,  108-109. 

Richard  I,  accession  of,  38;  his  ranson,  39-40;  general  taxa- 
tion under  royal  authority,  41;  release  and  subsequent 
levies,  42-44. 

Richard  II,  accession,  190;  summary  of  taxes  in  his  reign,  194, 
note  3;  resignation  and  deposition,  200-202. 


316  INDEX 

Richard  III,  accession,  216;  benevolences  prohibited,  216- 
217. 

St.  Albans,  Council  of,  58-59. 

Salisbury,  Gemdt  of,  13,  note. 

Scutage,  definition  of,  30;  early  instances,  31;  the  Great 
Scutage,  32-33;  complaint  of  Archbishop  Theobald,  34;  a 
cause  leading  to  Magna  Carta,  50;  list  of  John's  scutages, 
51,  and  note  1;  fines  and  other  attendant  abuses  under 
John,  53-54;  scutage  of  1214  precipitates  the  movement  for 
the  Charter,  60;  specified  in  Magna  Carta,  64;  referred  to 
in  Henry  Ill's  second  reissue,  75;  practice  of  scutage  by 
consent,  Henry  III,  76;  scutage  of  1242,  86. 

Sheriff's  aid,  27,  29. 

Ship-money,  a  precedent  in  the  Danegeld,  10-11;  requisition 
of  ships  under  Charles  I,  264;  first  writ,  281;  its  object,  283; 
second  and  third  writs,  284-285;  extra-judicial  opinions, 
285-286;  Hampden's  Case,  287-291,  293;  new  levy,  294; 
declaration  of  illegality  by  Long  Parliament,  298. 

Shire  moots,  their  utilization  in  taxing,  21. 

Star  Chamber,  its  utility  in  forced  loans,  251. 

Statutum  de  tallagio  non  concedendo,  150,  151,  159,  167;  cited 
in  Petition  of  Right,  271. 

Stephen,  24-26. 

Subsidy,  the  "new-found,"  219-220;  value  of  under  Eliza- 
beth, 234,  note  1. 

Supplies,  appropriation  of,  see  under  Appropriation. 

Tallage,  under  Henry  II  and  Richard  I,  47,  note  1 ;  definition 
of,  65,  note  1;  possibly  provided  against  in  Magna  Carta, 
65-66;  Kirkby's  tallages,  1290,  120;  tallage  not  referred  to 
in  Confirmatio  Cartarum,  149;  the  "statute"  De  Tallagio 
non  Concedendo,  150-151;  tallage  of  1304,  159;  tallage  of 
1312  resisted,  167;  revival  under  Edward  III,  170;  its  with- 
drawal, 171;  a  function  of  Parliament,  177-178. 

Theobald,  Archbishop,  his  complaint  against  scutage,  84. 

Trinoda  necessitas,  4. 

Tudors,  character  of  their  reigns,  217-219. 


INDEX  317 

Tunnage  and  poundage,  in  Carta  Mercatoria,  158;  given 
James  I  for  life,  239;  delay  in  grant  to  Charles  I,  261,  263; 
arbitrary  levies,  273;  Charles  renounces  tunnage  and  pound- 
age, 274-275;  failure  to  pass  a  life  allowance,  275-276; 
tumult  over  the  Rolles  case,  277;  resolution  against  the 
levies,  278;  reestablishment,  280;  declaration  of  illegality, 
297. 

Villeins,  Rising  of,  198-199. 

Wallingford,  treaty  of,  26. 

Walter,  Hubert,  justiciar,  at  Richard  I's  Council  of  Oxford, 
44-45. 

Westminster,  Statute  of,  110-111. 

William  the  Conqueror,  character  of  his  rule,  18;  attitude  to- 
ward his  National  Council,  14. 

William  and  Mary,  306-308. 

William  Rufus,  character  of  his  reign,  17-18. 

Winchester,  Bishop  of,  his  refusal  of  assent,  69. 

Witenagemot,  folkland  alienable  only  by  its  consent,  4;  as- 
sents to  levies  of  Danegeld,  8;  powers  and  composition, 
9-11. 

Wblsey,  Cardinal,  his  breach  of  Parliamentary  privilege,  222- 
224. 

Woodstock,  Controversy  of,  27-30. 

Wool,  a  custom  on,  1275,  111-113;  seizure  of,  1294,  124; 
seizure  of,  1297,  136;  tax  on,  under  Confirmatio  Cartarum, 
147-148;  increased  duties  to  foreign  merchants,  1302,  158; 
rate  reestablished,  165;  assaults  of  Edward  III  upon  the 
wool  customs,  172-177;  statute  for  Parliamentary  control, 
177;  practice  at  variance  with  it,  180-183;  proceeds  of  a 
subsidy  in  time  of  Richard  II,  197.  See  also  New  Customs, 
Ancient  Customs. 

York,  Geoffrey  of,  refuses  assent  to  John's  thirteenth,  56. 


DC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  711  691     6 


